Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab combination therapy in the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness of the addition of sintilimab as a first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a Chinese healthcare system perspective

BACKGROUND

The ORIENT-15 double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrated that the addition of sintilimab to chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) resulted in better clinical outcomes. In this analysis, we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab as a first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic OSCC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing chemotherapy alone with sintilimab for locally advanced or metastatic OSCC patients. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENT-15 trial and extrapolated to 10 years. Health state utilities and costs were sourced from the literature and from public healthcare institutions. The primary outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Two different sensitivity analyses, one-way and probabilistic, were performed to assess model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Sintilimab-based chemotherapy was more costly ($31699.21 vs. $20687.42) and more effective (0.74 vs. 0.53) than placebo-based chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $51908.19 /QALY, which is greater than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($38223/QALY). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the PFS and cost of sintilimab were the major influencing factors affecting the results.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with locally advanced or metastatic OSCC, sintilimab chemotherapy could improve survival time and health benefits compared with traditional chemotherapy, but the present analysis suggests that sintilimab is not a cost-effective treatment option in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of benmelstobart, anlotinib, and chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Background

The ETER701 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of benmelstobart combined with anlotinib plus etoposide/cisplatin (BEN-AL-EC) as a first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Results indicated that BEN-AL-EC, when compared with placebo in combination with etoposide/cisplatin (PLB-EC), significantly enhanced both progression-free and overall survival rates, while demonstrating an acceptable safety profile among patients with ES-SCLC. However, BEN-AL-EC is expensive, necessitating its cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BEN-AL-EC, AL-EC and PLB-EC for the treatment of ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Drug costs were derived from national tender prices, whereas other costs and utility values were derived from published literature. The key outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic analyses, were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The total cost of BEN-AL-EC was $55,117.42, yielding 1.09 QALYs, whereas that of PLB-EC was $15,238.15, yielding 0.71 QALYs. The ICER of BEN-AL-EC compared with PLB-EC was $106,249.42 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,133 per QALY, BEN-AL-EC had a 0% probability of being cost-effective relative to PLB-EC. The key parameters influencing these outcomes included utility values for PFS, the cost of benmelstobart, and the discount rate.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, BEN-AL-EC as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective when compared with PLB-EC.

Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China based on the EV-302 trial

Background

The efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab (EV-PEMB) was investigated as a first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in a phase III clinical trial (EV-302). The trial findings indicated significant prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chemotherapy with a favorable safety profile. However, EV-PEMB is costly and it is unknown whether it is cost-effective compared to chemotherapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of EV-PEMB versus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced UC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model with three distinct health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of EV-PEMB as a first-line treatment for advanced UC versus chemotherapy based on the EV-302 trial. Drug costs were obtained from national tender prices. Other expenses and utility values were sourced from the literature or expert advice. The findings of the study included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to ensure the model's robustness.

Results

The EV-PEMB regimen demonstrated a gain of 3.22 QALYs at $375,420.24, compared to the chemotherapy regimen with 1.70 QALYs at $23,369.67. ICER for EV-PEMB compared to chemotherapy was at $232,256.16 per QALY gained. In China, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,133 per QALY, EV-PEMB has a 0% probability of being cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced UC compared to chemotherapy.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, EV-PEMB is unlikely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced UC compared to chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several economic studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors compared to second-line chemotherapy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, there is a lack of economic comparisons among the different PD-1 inhibitors.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab, and tislelizumab) in second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC within the Chinese healthcare system.

METHOD

The clinical trials were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We established a fractional polynomials model to conduct a network meta-analysis, enabling the calculation of hazard ratios and expected survival rates. Economic outcomes were estimated using a partitioned survival model. The costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. The threshold for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was set at three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to address uncertainties in the model.

RESULTS

Four phase III randomized controlled trials were included, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four PD-1 inhibitors, camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, compared to chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC. For camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $27,375.43/QALY, $205,312.19/QALY, $9,266.73/QALY, and $220,368.10/QALY, respectively. The SA results indicated the robustness of the base analysis findings.

CONCLUSION

From the Chinese healthcare system, under the WTP of $38,253.48/QALY, tislelizumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Introduction

First-line treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in China, while its economic burden is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in patients with advanced OSCC. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from RATIONALE-306. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were selected as the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to test the stability of the results.

Results

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.48 QALYs with the incremental cost of $16,587.2 than chemotherapy, of which ICER was $34,699.72 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $37,260, the novel therapy had a probability of 77% to be cost-effective. Our base-case analysis results were sensitive to utilities of progression-free survival and progression of disease. Our subgroup analysis showed that the novel therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in patients with a high expression of PD-L1.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was likely to be more cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Our findings can provide clinicians and decision-makers with evidence of the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Atezolizumab versus Chemotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Ineligible for Platinum-Containing Regimens

Purpose

The IPSOS study provided evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of first-line atezolizumab compared to single-agent chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab specifically in this population, considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Patients and Methods

In this analysis, a three-state Markov model was utilized. The survival data were derived from the IPSOS clinical trial. Direct medical costs and utility values were collected from national authoritative database and published literature. The primary outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). To ensure the robustness of our model, both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

Atezolizumab monotherapy led to an increase in costs of $4139.23 compared to single-agent chemotherapy. Additionally, it resulted in a gain of 0.14 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $29,365.79 per QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36,066 per QALY used in the model. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed cost of atezolizumab and utility of progressive disease (PD) as major influencing factors for ICER. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed our base-case results.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, atezolizumab emerges as a cost-effective choice for the first-line treatment of NSCLC patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy.

First-Line Tislelizumab for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma:A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this current study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating tislelizumab into the first-line treatment of metastatic or advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in comparison to placebo with chemotherapy.

METHOD

We conducted a partitioned survival model with a time horizon of 10 years from a Chinese perspective. The direct medical costs were collected from the local setting in China. To enhance the credibility and robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

The inclusion of tislelizumab in conjunction with chemotherapy was shown to significantly enhance quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.328 when compared to chemotherapy alone. This improvement comes at an additional cost of $9833.694. The incorporation of tislelizumab into the treatment regimen for advanced ESCC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29980.774/QALY gained, which falls below the WTP threshold of $37304.346/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that no parameters were found to be adjustable within a specific range without altering the overall outcomes of our study.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC is may be a cost-effective option compared to chemotherapy alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line option for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of Chinese health-care system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was conducted to track 3-week patients' transition and evaluate the health and economic outcomes in 10-year horizon of the two competing first-line treatment among toripalimab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. The survival data were gathered from the JUPITER-06 trial, and cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment with toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields marginal cost of $8,639.74 and additional 0.65 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $13,280.97 per additional QALY gained, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 in China. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be the cost-effective first-line option for patients with advanced ESCC compared with chemotherapy alone with the WTP threshold of $38,224 per additional QALY gained from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the combination of serplulimab with chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: insights from the ASTRUM-007 trial

BACKGROUND

Combined serplulimab and chemotherapy demonstrated improved clinical survival outcomes in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and PD-L1 combined positive scores (CPS) ≥ 1. The present study aimed to evaluate the economic viability of integrating serplulimab in combination with chemotherapy as a potential therapeutic approach for treating ESCC in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the economic and health-related implications of combining serplulimab with chemotherapy. With the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), costs and results in terms of health were estimated. For assessing parameter uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity studies were carried out.

RESULTS

The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy yielded incremental costs and QALYs of $3,163 and 0.14, $2,418 and 0.10, and $3,849 and 0.15, respectively, for the overall population as well as patients with PD-L1 CPS1-10 and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. This corresponds to ICER values per QALY of $23,657, $23,982, and $25,134. At the prespecified WTP limit, the probabilities of serplulimab with chemotherapy being the preferred intervention option were 74.4%, 61.3%, and 78.1% for the entire patient population, those with PD-L1 1 ≤ CPS < 10, and those with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The stability of the presented model was confirmed through sensitivity studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the combination of Serplulimab and chemotherapy showed excellent cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone in treating PD-L1-positive patients with ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer

Background

A recent phase III clinical trial (NCT03981796) evaluated the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (DOS-CP) compared to placebo combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (PLB-CP) as a first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC). The NCT03981796 trial demonstrated that DOS-CP significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced EC while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. However, DOS-CP is expensive and its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP compared to PLB-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from the NCT03981796 trial, and drug costs were determined based on national tender prices. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

In comparison to PLB-CP, the ICER of DOS-CP was $98,276.61/QALY for the overall population, $53,063.61/QALY for the dMMR subgroup, and $124,088.56/QALY for the pMMR subgroup. All of these ICER values were higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The most important variable that affected the results of the model was the discount rate, the cost of dostarlimab, and the utility value for progressive disease.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, DOS-CP is unlikely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was created to evaluate costs and health outcomes. The model's robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $104,537.375/quality-adjusted life-year in the overall population group. Subgroup analysis showed that serplulimab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $261,750.496/quality-adjusted life-year and $68,107.997/quality-adjusted life-year in the populations with PD-L1 1 ≤ combined positive score <10 and PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of serplulimab therapy were found to exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,304.34. Thus, serplulimab is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 as the first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

Background: The SPOTLIGHT trial demonstrated that zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (ZOL-FO) as a first-line regimen compared with placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (PLB-FO) conferred clinical benefits to patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, due to the high cost of zolbetuximab, whether ZOL-FO is cost-effective compared with PLB-FO is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models with three different health states were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the SPOTLIGHT trial; the drug's cost was calculated at national bid prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model's robustness was verified using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The ZOL-FO group gained 1.64 QALYs at $87,746.35, while the PLB-FO group gained 1.23 QALYs at $11,947.81. The ICER for ZOL-FO versus PLB-FO was $185,353.28 per QALY gained. The parameters exerting an important impact on the model results were the price of zolbetuximab, body surface area, and progression-free survival utility. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALY, ZOL-FO had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with PLB-FO. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, ZOL-FO is unlikely to be cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients with Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a prevalent and highly malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Recently, the RATIONALE-306 trial demonstrated that tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy provided overall survival benefits for these patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this treatment approach in Chinese patients with advanced ESCC from the perspective of healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to assess the economic and health benefits associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy over a 10-year lifetime horizon, utilizing data from the RATIONALE-306 trial. The analysis encompassed the calculation of several key parameters, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), total cost, incremental cost, total effectiveness, and incremental effectiveness. Tislelizumab was considered cost-effective if the ICER obtained was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$38,223 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); otherwise, it would be deemed not cost-effective. To ensure the robustness of the findings, the results were subjected to one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, were determined to be 0.40 QALY and US$7604, respectively. This resulted in an ICER of US$18,846 per QALY, which is below the WTP threshold of US$38,223 per QALY. Furthermore, the results from the one-way sensitivity analysis and PSA indicated robustness of the findings.

CONCLUSION

Our lifetime simulation study demonstrated that, in the case of advanced ESCC, the combination of tislelizumab and chemotherapy offers increased effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone, albeit at a higher cost. Moreover, considering the current WTP threshold in China, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy is considered a cost-effective approach.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Camrelizumab combination therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has considerable survival benefits. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with ESCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) over a 20-year time horizon. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy increased QALYs by 0.30 (0.43 LYs), with an incremental cost of $9,272. The ICERs for camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone was $31,062/QALY ($21,599/LY), and the INHB was 0.05 QALY at the cost-effective threshold of $37,653/QALY (3 times China's GDP per capita). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was the most sensitive to utility values in the PFS state. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that camrelizumab combination therapy had a probability of 74.04% cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $37,653/QALY. Scenario analyses confirmed that the findings were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab combination therapy is likely to have a cost-effectiveness advantage over chemotherapy alone for previously untreated advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Objective

The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in China

Objective: This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all available programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed based on a network meta-analysis. The survival data and utility values were derived from clinical trials, and the direct medical costs were collected from public drug bidding database and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with mono-chemotherapy, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab plus chemotherapy were cost-effective treatment regimens, while serplulimab, pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were not cost-effective options. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy provided the highest QALYs of 0.95 with the lower cost of $8,110.53 compared to other competing alternatives. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by scenario and one-way sensitivity analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38,351.20) in 2021, the probability of toripalimab plus chemotherapy being the optimal option was 74.25% compared with other six competing alternatives. Conclusion: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy represented the most cost-effective option as the first-line therapy for advanced ESCC patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Toripalimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It has been approved for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) as the first-line treatment due to significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the JUPITER-06 trial.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness between toripalimab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese health system.

METHOD

The study developed a 3-year partitioned survival model to assess costs and outcomes in two treatment groups with or without toripalimab. The critical indicator was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings and identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy were 0.26 quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) and $11,254.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $43,405.09/QALY, higher than the 2021 willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($37,658.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the utility of PFS, the incidence of neutropenia in the toripalimab group, and the cost of toripalimab. The toripalimab plus chemotherapy group was cost-effective only if the price of toripalimab decreased by more than 40%.

CONCLUSION

Adding toripalimab to chemotherapy was not cost-effective in patients with advanced ESCC in China.