Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the USA

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line cadonilimab plus chemotherapy in HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Background

The COMPASSION-15 trial demonstrated that cadonilimab plus chemotherapy (CAD-CHM) confers clinical benefits over placebo plus chemotherapy (PLA-CHM) as a first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, the introduction of cadonilimab substantially elevates treatment costs, and its cost-effectiveness relative to PLA-CHM remains undetermined. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of CAD-CHM compared with PLA-CHM from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAD-CHM in HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical efficacy data were sourced from the COMPASSION-15 trial, while drug costs were calculated based on national tender prices, and additional costs and utility values were extracted from published literature. The analysis encompassed the overall population, as well as subgroups stratified by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5 and CPS < 5. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model robustness.

Results

The ICER of CAD-CHM was $67,378.09 per QALY in the overall population, $48,433.34 per QALY in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 subgroup, and $78,463.86 per QALY in the PD-L1 CPS < 5 subgroup. Key determinants influencing model outcomes included patient weight, cadonilimab cost, and the utility value of progression-free survival. Across all groups, CAD-CHM resulted in an ICER exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $41,511 per QALY, with a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with PLA-CHM.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, CAD-CHM is not cost-effective as a first-line treatment for HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, either in the overall population or in subgroups stratified by PD-L1 CPS status, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Objective

The RATIONALE-305 trial demonstrated that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy regimens was more beneficial than chemotherapy regimens alone in the treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced GC/GEJC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

Methods

A three-state partition survival model was constructed to evaluate the economics of tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of advanced GC/GEJC. Clinical data were collected from the RATIONALE-305 trial, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the output index. The stability of the results was verified using sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In addition, scenario analysis was conducted for the model simulation time and different parameter extrapolation models.

Results

The results of basic analysis showed an increase of 0.31 QALYs in the tislelizumab group compared with the placebo group (1.53 QALYs vs 1.22 QALYs), and a concomitant increase in cost of 10,326.68 USD, with an ICER of 33,876.38 USD/QALY, which is less than the current Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold (36,924.80 USD/QALY). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the utility values of progression-free survival, progressive disease and the price of capecitabine had a greater impact on the model. Subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was equally cost-effective in people with a program death ligand 1 tumor area positivity score of ≥5%.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese health service system, the treatment of advanced GC/GEJC with tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has a cost-effective advantage over chemotherapy alone.

Economic evaluation of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals - evidence from Hungary based on the HUNCHEST-II study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death in Hungary. Early diagnosis of LC contributes to delivering survival benefits to patients. Low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) is an imaging technology that can be used to identify smaller nodules. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of introducing organised LDCT screening in Hungary among individuals aged 50 to 74 years with high-risk for developing LC using clinical effectiveness and resource utilisation inputs based on the recent HUNCHEST-II clinical trial.

METHODS

We estimated costs and outcomes in a cost-utility analysis framework over the time horizon of 30 years to compare annual and biennial screening for LC with LDCT against standard screening. The economic evaluation simulated a cohort of current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years with a smoking exposure of at least 25 pack-years, using data from HUNCHEST-II, a multicentre study to evaluate the impact of LDCT screening on early detection of LC. Complementary data were retrieved from published studies and interviews with local experts.

RESULTS

The results of the analysis are favourable from an economic perspective: the introduction of biennial screening for LC with LDCT yielded an incremental effectiveness of 0.031 QALYs as well as an increase in costs of 306 764 HUFs over the 30-year -time horizon when compared to standard screening. The value of the base case ICER (9 908 100 HUF/QALY) of biennial screening for LC with LDCT over standard screening was below the relevant cost-effectiveness threshold. Applying an annual screening strategy using LDCT yielded even more favourable cost-effectiveness results (ICER = 7 927 455 HUF/QALY) compared to biennial screening. Notably, the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening was extendedly dominated by annual screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Along with the mature data on its effectiveness, our analysis confirms that using LDCT for LC screening among high-risk individuals is a cost-effective alternative of standard screening in Hungary. Funding a nationwide lung screening program that uses LDCT is a justified decision in economic terms; annual screening would be the optimal strategy to maximize health benefits; however in case of limited financial resources, biennial LDCT screening could offer a cost saving alternative for marginally less health gains than annual screening.

Atezolizumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS): a cost-effectiveness analysis in the USA

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (IIIB/IV-NSCLC) ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN

This is based on the IPSOS clinical trial. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy versus single-agent chemotherapy over a 15-year duration. Employing a robust Markov model incorporating data from 453 patients, we calculated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY. We performed one-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to validate our model.

SETTING

The US payer perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort with NSCLC ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen from IPSOS clinical trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost, QALYs, LYs and ICER.

RESULT

Chemotherapy resulted in an average survival of 0.930 QALYs (1.528 LYs) per patient at an average cost of $67 579. Atezolizumab treatment provided an additional 0.309 QALYs but incurred an extra cost of $66 472, leading to an ICER of $215 069 per QALY compared with chemotherapy. The cost of atezolizumab had the most significant impact on the model outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that atezolizumab had a 30.2% probability of being considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY in the USA. These results remained consistent across various scenarios and sensitivity analyses employing both deterministic and probabilistic approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current price of atezolizumab renders it an unlikely cost-effective treatment option for patients with IIIB/IV-NSCLC from the payer's perspective in the USA. To achieve cost-effectiveness, substantial discounts are necessary.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The IMpower-110, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02409342). The IPSOS clinical trial (NCT03191786).

Bioorthogonal Diels-Alder Click Chemistry-Based Pretargeted PET Imaging Strategy for Monitoring Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression

The development of antibody tracers for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging enables real-time monitoring of tumor expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in vivo, aiming to facilitate the selection of immunotherapy responders. However, the slow pharmacokinetics of the antibodies in vivo limits their applications in PET imaging with commonly used radionuclides with short half-lives. In this study, we developed a pretargeted PET imaging strategy based on Diels-Alder (IEDDA) click chemistry to overcome these limitations. Atezolizumab and durvalumab, the most commonly used PD-L1 antibodies in cancer immunotherapy, were selected and compared in the development of the pretargeted PET imaging strategy. Fluorine-18-labeled derivatives of methyl tetrazine ([18F]Tz, [18F]PEG6-Tz, and [18F]PEG12-Tz) were tested in biodistribution and PET imaging of A549-PDL1 xenografts (PD-L1 positive) pretargeted with the trans-cyclooctene (TCO)-functionalized atezolizumab/durvalumab. The biodistribution and imaging results indicated that atezolizumab-TCO/[18F]PEG12-Tz was more suitable for pretargeted PET imaging strategy, and the optimal interval time was 48 h after atezolizumab-TCO administration, where the atezolizumab-TCO/[18F]PEG12-Tz pretargeted approach clearly delineated the A549-PDL1 tumor with a tumor-to-muscle ratio of 5.33, while the ratios are 3.39 and 2.39 for durvalumab/[18F]PEG12-Tz and mock-pretargeting controls, respectively. In conclusion, a pretargeted 18F-immuno-PET imaging technology was successfully established on atezolizumab. The high-contrast PET images of the A549-PDL1 tumor models demonstrate that the pretargeting strategy incorporating short-lived fluorine-18 is viable in identifying tumors with high PD-L1 expression, marking this strategy as a potential candidate for further clinical translation.

A Clinical Analysis of Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatments Combined with Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Real-world clinical experience of using anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients has rarely been reported. In this study, we aimed to perform a retrospective multicenter clinical analysis of extensive-stage SCLC patients receiving first-line therapy with anti-PD-L1 ICIs combined with chemotherapy. Between November 2018 and March 2022, 72 extensive-stage SCLC patients receiving first-line atezolizumab or durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy, according to the cancer center databases of Linkou, Chiayi, and Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals, were retrospectively included in the analysis. Twenty-one patients (29.2%) received atezolizumab and fifty-one (70.8%) received durvalumab. Objective response (OR) and disease control (DC) rates of 59.7% and 73.6%, respectively, were observed with first-line ICI plus chemotherapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.63 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.25-8.02), and the median overall survival (OS) was 16.07 months (95% CI, 15.12-17.0) in all study patients. A high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; >4) and a high serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentration (>260 UL) were identified as independent unfavorable factors associated with shorter OS in the multivariate analysis. Regarding safety, neutropenia was the most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event (AE), but no treatment-related deaths occurred in the study patients. First-line anti-PD-L1 ICIs combined with chemotherapy are effective and safe for male extensive-stage SCLC patients. Further therapeutic strategies may need to be developed for patients with unfavorable outcomes (e.g., baseline high NLR and serum LDH level).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Background

Serplulimab has shown promising results in the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab combination therapy compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with ES-SCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the costs and outcomes of patients receiving serplulimab combination therapy or chemotherapy alone over a time horizon of 10 years. Data on overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 randomized clinical trial. Costs were estimated from a healthcare system perspective and included drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, and management of adverse events. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty on the results.

Results

The base-case analysis showed that the combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has demonstrated a significant increase in QALYs of 0.626 compared to chemotherapy alone. This improved outcome is accompanied by an additional cost of $10893.995. The ICER for incorporating serplulimab into the treatment regimen is $17402.548 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that serplulimab combination therapy had a 97.40% high probability of being cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone at the WTP thresholds.

Conclusion

In contrast to chemotherapy as a standalone treatment, the addition of serplulimab to chemotherapy is believed to offer potential cost-effectiveness as a preferred initial therapeutic approach for patients with ES-SCLC in China.

First-line treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the US payer.

METHODS

Based on the POSEIDON clinical trial, a partition survival model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The model's primary outcomes were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis only considered direct medical costs, and health utility value was determined using published literature. The robustness of the model was tested by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The combination therapy of durvalumab and chemotherapy improved survival by 0.713 QALYs at an incremental cost of $64 104.638 compared with chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $89 908.328 per QALY gained from the US payer perspective. The combination therapy had a 92.3% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY based on incremental net health benefits. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's consistency, and none of the parameters significantly influenced the findings.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy represents a more cost-effective strategy for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC in the USA compared with chemotherapy alone.

Economic evaluation of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-007 study confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic, programmed cell death-ligand 1 positive oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The economics of this regimen, however, is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of chemotherapy versus serplulimab plus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the ASTRUM-007 study. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The base case analysis showed that the cost of serplulimab plus chemotherapy (US$69 356) was US$41 607 higher than that of chemotherapy (US$27 749), but it also gained 0.38 QALYs more (1.38 vs 1 QALYs), with an ICER of US$110 744.36/QALY, which was higher than the willingness to pay. The factors that most influenced the ICER were the price of serplulimab, weight and utility value of the progression-free survival stage. The subgroup analysis and scenario analysis also demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not economical.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab coupled with chemotherapy was not cost-effective for the treatment of advanced OSCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Expression Status in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower110 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC, including programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-positive probability testing, from the perspective of healthcare costs in Japan.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis model for atezolizumab, including PD-L1-positive probability testing, was used to construct a partitioned survival model with three health states. To assess the robustness, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. The acceptable probability was defined as the probability of willingness-to-pay (WTP) over the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Multiple repetitions at WTP thresholds were calculated by continuously reducing the atezolizumab price.

RESULTS

The ICER per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for atezolizumab therapy only for patients with high PD-L1 expression compared to platinum-based chemotherapy for all patients was 31,975,792 yen per QALY. This is higher than the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen. If the cost of atezolizumab were reduced to 54% of the original cost (563,917 yen), the strategy of using atezolizumab for patients with high PD-L1 could become more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that atezolizumab was not cost-effective compared to platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC. However, we suggest that the price of atezolizumab should be reduced to 54% of the original cost to meet the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen per QALY.

Adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy for treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the US and Chinese healthcare sector perspectives: a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform drug pricing

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a recently approved first-line therapy (adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone) for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the US and China, and to estimate the reasonable range of adebrelimab price from the decision-makers. Methods: Several partitioned survival models were built to compare the cost and effectiveness of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. Sensitivity, scenario and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the uncertainty of the model outcomes. Price simulation was conducted at three thresholds of willingness-to-pay (WTP), including WTP of $100,000 in the US and of $37,422 in China, 0.5WTP of $50,000 in the US and of $18,711 in China, and 1.5WTP of 150,000 in the US and of $56,133 in China. Findings: Base-case analysis at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $100,000, but not in China at the WTP threshold of $37,422. If PAP was taken into account, the regimen would be cost-effective in China at the given WTP. The results of price simulation indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy was completely favored in the US if adebrelimab price was less than $8894.98/600 mg (total quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] were calculated with progression-based utility [PB-utility]) or $8912.51/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with time-to-death utility [TTD-utility]) at the WTP threshold of $100,000; if adebrelimab price was reduced by at least $202.03/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with PB-utility) or $103.06/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with TTD-utility), the regimen was also cost-effective in China without PAP at the WTP threshold of $37,422. The above results were stable in the sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analysis found that the subgroup with better survival benefits tended to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, which was also associated with adebrelimab price. Implications: First-line adebrelimab plus chemotherapy represented a dominant treatment strategy comparing with chemotherapy alone in the US and also did in China with PAP at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price. Decision-makers could benefit from pricing strategy provided by this study in making optimal decisions. More evidences were needed to verify and improve the results.

Cost-effectiveness of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-etoposide (EP). It is likely to be more effective in treating ES-SCLC than EP alone, but could result in high healthcare costs. The study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

We searched literature from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies on cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for ES-SCLC. The literature search period was up to April 20, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 16 eligible studies were included in the review. All studies met CHEERS recommendations, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these studies were rated as having low risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The treatment regimens compared were ICIs plus EP or EP alone. All studies mainly used incremental quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes. Most ICIs plus EP treatment regimens were not cost-effective based on corresponding willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Adebrelimab plus EP and serplulimab plus EP were probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in China, and serplulimab plus EP was probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in the U.S. Lowering the price of ICIs and selecting ES-SCLC patients who were sensitive to ICIs could improve the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs-combined treatment.

Economic evaluation of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Background and objective

The CHOICE-01 trial showed that toripalimab plus chemotherapy achieved satisfactory outcomes compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were negative for driver genes, but the economics of this regimen is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Materials and methods

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with adding toripalimab to first-line chemotherapy. The clinical data in the model came from the CHOICE-01 trial, only direct medical costs were included, and utility values were referred to the literature. Four models were applied to explore the differences in the results of fitting and extrapolating K-M curves from different models, and cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model.

Results

The baseline analysis showed that toripalimab coupled with chemotherapy cost $21,052 more than chemotherapy ($43,197 vs. $22,145) and also gained 0.71 QALYs more (1.75 QALYs vs. 1.03 QALYs), with an ICER of $29,478/QALYs. At the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($35,108/QALY), the extra cost was well worth it. The results of fitting and extrapolating the survival curves using other models were consistent with the results of the standard parametric model. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy was economical. Sensitivity analysis showed that the utility values of PD and PFS stages had the greatest impact on the model.

Conclusion

From the viewpoint of the Chinese healthcare system, toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.

Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of US and Chinese Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing

BACKGROUND

Serplulimab is a potential valuable therapy, while patients, physicians, and decision-makers are uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this novel drug and its corresponding reasonable price. This study aimed to simulate the price at which serplulimab was cost-effective as first-line therapy for United States (US) and Chinese extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. Baseline characteristics of patients and critical clinical data were obtained from ASTRUM-005. Costs and utilities were collected from open-access databases and published literature. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulation was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The robustness of the model was assessed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses; subgroup analyses were also included.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg) would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $150,000, with improved effectiveness of 0.61 QALYs and an additional cost of $64,918 (ICER $106,757). Serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg, patient assistance program considered) was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.58 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $19,369 (ICER $33,392). The price simulation results indicated that serplulimab was favored in the US when the price was less than $762.11/100 mg and $1261.57/100 mg at the WTP threshold of $100,000 and $150,000, respectively; it was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,184 when the price was less than $373.37/100 mg in China. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. Subgroup analysis results indicated an overall trend for subgroups with better survival advantages to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, despite serplulimab not being cost-effective in some subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Serplulimab might be a valuable and cost-effective therapy in both the US and China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about the budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer

Objective

The TOPAZ-1 trial reported a significant survival benefit of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, no studies have evaluated the economics of this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of durvalumab plus chemotherapy compared to placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

Based on clinical data from the TOPAZ-1 trial, a Markov model was developed to simulate 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with BTC. The treatment group received durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the control group received placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary outcomes analyzed included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty in the analysis results was assessed by sensitivity analysis.

Results

For US payers, the placebo plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $56,157.05 and a utility of 1.10 QALYs, while the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $217,069.25, a utility of 1.52 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $381,864.39/QALY. For Chinese payers, the ICER of durvalumab plus chemotherapy group was $367,608.51/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was most sensitive to the price of durvalumab. For US and Chinese payers, under the respective willing to pay thresholds, the likelihood of the durvalumab plus chemotherapy arm being cost-effective was 0%.

Conclusions

Both in China and in the US, durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of BTC compared with chemotherapy.

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The ASTRUM-005 trial (NCT04063163) revealed that combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy (etoposide and carboplatin [EC]) treatment was associated with survival advantages relative to chemotherapy alone in patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). As these immuno-chemotherapeutic regimens are extremely expensive, however, it is critical that the relative cost-effectiveness of combination serplulimab and chemotherapy treatment as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC patients be examined in detail.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of combined serplulimab plus chemotherapeutic treatment was examined using a comprehensive Markov model with a 10-year boundary, enabling the calculation of overall cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model instability was interrogated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 1.217 QALYs (2.243 LYs) and 0.885 QALYs (1.661 LYs) with corresponding total costs of $11,202 and $7,194, with an ICER of $12,077 per QALY ($6,883 per LY). This model was most strongly influenced by the utility of progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy had a 91.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $37,653 per QALY (3 × capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). In subgroup analyses, this combination treatment regimen was found to be most cost-effective in patients who were former smokers, had an ECOG performance status of 0, and were diagnosed with brain metastases.

Conclusion

From a payer perspective in China, combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy treatment represents a cost-effective first-line intervention for ES-SCLC patients.

circPVT1 and PVT1/AKT3 show a role in cell proliferation, apoptosis, and tumor subtype-definition in small cell lung cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is treated as a homogeneous disease, although the expression of NEUROD1, ASCL1, POU2F3, and YAP1 identifies distinct molecular subtypes. The MYC oncogene, amplified in SCLC, was recently shown to act as a lineage-specific factor to associate subtypes with histological classes. Indeed, MYC-driven SCLCs show a distinct metabolic profile and drug sensitivity. To disentangle their molecular features, we focused on the co-amplified PVT1, frequently overexpressed and originating circular (circRNA) and chimeric RNAs. We analyzed hsa_circ_0001821 (circPVT1) and PVT1/AKT3 (chimPVT1) as examples of such transcripts, respectively, to unveil their tumorigenic contribution to SCLC. In detail, circPVT1 activated a pro-proliferative and anti-apoptotic program when over-expressed in lung cells, and knockdown of chimPVT1 induced a decrease in cell growth and an increase of apoptosis in SCLC in vitro. Moreover, the investigated PVT1 transcripts underlined a functional connection between MYC and YAP1/POU2F3, suggesting that they contribute to the transcriptional landscape associated with MYC amplification. In conclusion, we have uncovered a functional role of circular and chimeric PVT1 transcripts in SCLC; these entities may prove useful as novel biomarkers in MYC-amplified tumors.