The cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab versus regorafenib for treating previously treated unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair colorectal cancer in China

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Studies in Oncology: A Scoping Review Focused on Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used in case of cross-trial heterogeneity or availability of only single-arm trials. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides MAIC-development orientation, many still do not adhere to it. Our goal was to map MAIC oncology studies and whether NICE recommendations were observed.

METHODS

We included MAIC studies comparing treatments in oncology from 2010. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to October 1, 2024. We analyzed MAIC characteristics such as previous systematic reviews, whether the analysis was anchored or unanchored, selection of variables, and individual patient data (IPD) reporting. We adopted NICE recommendations for the assessment of MAIC studies.

RESULTS

We included 117 MAIC studies, which often explored multiple myeloma (n = 19%) and non-small cell lung cancer (17%) more frequently. Most MAICs were unanchored (72%), with an average of 1.9 comparisons per study. MAIC studies generally reported using pseudo-IPD (69%) but did not report the source of IPD (78%). In general, MAICs did not conduct systematic reviews to select trials for inclusion (66%). The average sample size reduction, in comparison with the original trials, was 44.9%. Only 3 MAICs fulfilled all NICE recommendations. The least reported aspects were the adjustment for all effect modifiers and prognostic variables (for unanchored MAICs), evidence of effect modifier status, and distribution of weights.

CONCLUSIONS

Most MAIC models did not follow NICE recommendations. Our review highlights the importance of rigorous methodological standards and thorough reporting of MAIC studies to enhance their credibility.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI and mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI treatment in first-line and second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI compared with mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI in first-line and second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from the perspectives of the USA and China, respectively, and provide a decision-making basis for clinical selection of these two regimens.

DESIGN

The study used a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the process of mCRC, including three distinct health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease and death. Clinical data were derived from the TRIBE2 trial.Costs and utilities were obtained from local public databases and literature. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed to explore the parameters' uncertainty in this study.

PARTICIPANTS

The main included patients were histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

First-line and second-line treatment with either FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI or mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients treated with the FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI regimen produced 0.08 QALYs in the USA while 0.04 QALYs in China compared with the mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI regimen. The final ICERs for FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI were US$5127.70 per QALY and US$30 478.33 per QALY in the USA and China, which are below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. In the USA, when the WTP was US$100 000 for each QALY gained, the probability was nearly 99.6% that the FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI treatment was cost-effective. In China, when the WTP was US$36 053.01 (3 × GDP) for each QALY gained, the probability was nearly 54.7% that FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI treatment was cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOXIRI/FOLFOXIRI as first-line and second-line chemotherapy may improve health outcomes and expend financial resources more efficiently than mFOLFOX6/FOLFIRI whether in China or the USA, which benefits not only individual survival but also the health care system from a value perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line enfortumab vedotin in addition to pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the United States

Background and objective

The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin.

Conclusions

From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) presenting a particularly challenging prognosis. The FRESCO-2 trial highlighted the potential of fruquintinib in heavily pretreated mCRC patients.

AIM

Given the recent changes in drug pricing in China and the evolving mCRC treatments, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib in the context of current Chinese healthcare standards.

METHOD

This study utilized data from the FRESCO-2 trial, incorporating a partitioned-survival model to simulate three health states: Progression-Free Survival, Progressive Disease, and death. Costs and utility values were derived from published literature and the FRESCO-2 trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case result and to understand the impact of various parameters on the ICER.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed a total cost of $11,089.05 for the fruquintinib group and $5,374.48 for the placebo group. The overall QALYs were higher in the fruquintinib group (0.61 QALYs) compared to the placebo group (0.43 QALYs). The ICER was calculated to be $31,747.67 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the utility of progression-free survival, the cost of fruquintinib, and the costs of best supportive care as significant determinants of ICER.

CONCLUSION

Fruquintinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for refractory mCRC. However, its cost-effectiveness depends on selected willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. While the drug's ICER surpasses the WTP based on China's 2022 GDP per capita, it remains below the threshold set at three times the national GDP.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

Regorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a standard treatment choice for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Nonetheless, its substantial cost places a significant burden on social health resources and patients. However, the cost-effectiveness (CE) of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies is still undetermined.

Objective

This study aims to assess the CE of regorafenib compared to other third-line therapies for the treatment of mCRC.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as nine other databases to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023, focusing on patients with mCRC and examining the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib. Following the screening and extraction of pertinent data, the study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist.

Results

The literature search yielded 751 records, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 13 studies from 7 different countries were included. Of these, 7 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102), 3 studies compared regorafenib with best supportive care (BSC), and 3 studies compared regorafenib with fruquintinib, serplulimab, and regorafenib dose optimization (ReDo).The quality of the included studies was high with an average QHES scores of 85.62. Regorafenib standard dose proves to be less cost-effective than alternative third-line therapies. Implementing a dose optimization strategy could potentially rectify this disparity and enhance the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib.

Conclusion

The use of the standard dose of regorafenib is generally regarded as not cost-effective when compared to other third-line therapies for patients with mCRC. However, implementing a dose-escalation strategy may enhance regorafenib's cost-effectiveness. Consequently, significant price reductions or optimizing the dose of regorafenib are required to achieve cost-effectiveness.