Cost-Effectiveness of Domestic PD-1 Inhibitor Camrelizumab Combined With Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Antibodies Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for NSCLC in the People's Republic of China: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The available approved anticancer drugs for Chinese patients are relatively limited because of China's low participation rate in international clinical trials. Therefore, a focus on approved anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) drugs in China is needed. This study aims to assess the heterogeneity of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies manufactured in China (domestic PD-1/PD-L1) and overseas (imported PD-1/PD-L1) when combined with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library of publications up to July 13, 2023. Meta-analysis was applied to compare the efficacy and safety profile between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies plus chemotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo) and chemotherapy alone using STATA software. Pooled hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, odds ratios for objective response rate, and incidence rate of grade greater than or equal to three treatment-related adverse events with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in the domestic group and imported group by a random-effects model, and the heterogeneity between the two estimates was assessed.

Results

There were 14 eligible clinical studies with a total of 3951 patients involved in this analysis, including eight studies of domestic PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo and six studies of imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo. The study revealed that there was no significant difference between domestic and imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo in overall survival (p = 0.80), progression-free survival (p = 0.53), and incidence rate of grade greater than or equal to three treatment-related adverse events (p = 0.10). Nevertheless, the objective response rate of imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo was significantly higher than that of domestic PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Domestic anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies plus chemotherapy were found to have comparable efficacy and safety to those combined with imported anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies based on current evidence.

Treatment patterns in advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China: results from the CancerMPact® survey 2021

Aim: To report the treatment patterns of advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China from a physician survey (CancerMPact®). Materials & methods: A total of 206 Chinese physicians from 27 cities in urban mainland China reported on their treatment of NSCLC in September 2021. Results: Platinum doublets received 70.5% utilization for squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 expression <1% in first-line, whereas nonsquamous NSCLC was treated with platinum doublets (35.2%) or bevacizumab with platinum doublets (35.3%). Checkpoint inhibitors were utilized in >50% of all PD-L1-positive NSCLC cases. Driver-mutated NSCLC was most frequently treated with targeted therapy or platinum-based combinations. Conclusion: NSCLC treatment in China varies by histology, PD-L1 status and driver mutations, illustrating the complexity of decision-making for Chinese physicians as treatment markets expand.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The CAPSTONE-1 trial demonstrated that adebrelimab-based immunotherapy yielded a favourable survival benefit compared with chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this immunotherapy in the treatment of ES-SCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

DESIGN

The TreeAge Pro software was used to establish a three-state partitioned survival model. Survival data came from the CAPSTONE-1 trial (NCT03711305), and only direct medical costs were included. Utility values were obtained from the published literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy was investigated through scenario and exploratory analyses in various settings.

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

The basic analysis revealed that the adebrelimab group achieved a total of 1.1 QALYs at a cost of US$65 385, while the placebo group attained 0.78 QALYs at a cost of US$12 741. ICER was US$163 893/QALY. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model was robust. Results from scenario and exploratory analyses indicated that the combination of adebrelimab and chemotherapy did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in any scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC was not economical compared with chemotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Societal Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The updated ORIENT-11 study demonstrated that sintilimab, when combined with chemotherapy, had promising survival advantage compared to standard chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment for previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced nsNSCLC from a Chinese societal perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with a embedded decision tree was developed to assess the economic value of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, while costs, health productivity losses, and utility values were collected from a nationwide cross-sectional survey in tertiary hospitals across multiple provinces in China. The primary outcomes were measured using the metrics of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses, were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to standard chemotherapy, treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of $23,979 and gained 0.98 QALYs over the lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of $24,568 per QALY gained. The use of sintilimab accumulated direct non-medical costs of $9262 and indirect costs of $6780 over 16 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed an 84.2% probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective at a threshold of three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022 ($38,201). The model was most sensitive to the discount rate of QALYs and costs, as well as the costs of pemetrexed, sintilimab, and subsequent therapy in progressive disease state. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable incremental net monetary benefits in all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment therapy for advanced nsNSCLC in China when compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings, along with the improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) observed in ORIENT-11, support the use of this regimen in eligible candidates for advanced nsNSCLC.

Clinical outcomes and medical resource utilization of toripalimab combination therapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical efficacy and safety, economic burdens and medical resource utilization (MRU) of toripalimab treatment patterns compared with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BCP) for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

METHODS

Progression-free survival (PFS), adverse drug reactions (ADR) and the costs of drugs, laboratory testing, imageology examinations (including CT, B ultrasound, MRI), medical service, nursing, treatment, genetic test and medical disposable material were compared between two groups. A retrospective observational study was conducted with electronic medical records from Fudan University Huashan hospital. Data was obtained from established electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient surveys. Survival time from the study enrollment to disease progression or death plus from 1st progression disease (PD) in the maintenance phase to 2nd PD (PFS II), adverse events (AE), direct medical costs, MRU and AE-related costs were collected and compared between toripalimab group and BCP group. A total of 246 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

Toripalimab combination therapy has significantly prolonged PFS comparing with BCP (13.8 months vs. 6.2 months, p < .001). A statistically significant improvement in PFS was observed favoring all toripalimab regimen subgroups compared with the bevacizumab group. Patients in toripalimab group occupied more overall resource consumption, more direct medical costs ($47,056.9 vs. $29,951.0, p < .0001) and AE-related costs ($4,500.2 vs. $784.4, p < .0001) than BCP group. Although patients in the toripalimab group used more drugs to prevent AEs ($4,500.2 vs. $784.4, p < .0001), they still experienced more AEs than patients in BCP group (51.4% vs. 41.4%).

CONCLUSION

Toripalimab combination therapy could significantly prolonged PFS for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC compared with BCP, but at the expense of more MRU, costs and AEs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

A multicenter, real-world study on effectiveness and safety of first-line modified PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with drive gene-negative

OBJECTIVES

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, particularly PD-1 inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of advanced tumors and shown significant improvements in patient survival rates. However, which PD-1 inhibitor is more effective and safer for a specific indication remains unclear. To address this problem, our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different PD-1 inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for individuals with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver genes in the real world.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of individuals diagnosed with aNSCLC who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with modified PD-1 inhibitors, including Sintilimab, Toripalimab, Tislelizumab, Camrelizumab, or Pembrolizumab as first-line treatment between March 5th, 2016 and October 20th, 2022. We assessed demographic and clinical information and analyzed clinical response, survival outcomes, and safety profiles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.

RESULTS

As of the date cut-off on October 20th, 2022, the median follow-up time was 20.62 months. A total of 204 patients were enrolled in the study, including 56 (27.5%) patients receiving modified PD-1 inhibitors (Sintilimab, Toripalimab, Tislelizumab, or Camrelizumab) in combination with chemotherapy and 148 (72.5%) patients receiving Pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy. In the overall cohort, the median overall survival (OS) was 26.9 months (95%CI, 22.3-31.6), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.4 months (95%CI, 6.9-9.8), and the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 47.6% (95%CI, 29.9-43.6) and 84.3% (95%CI, 78.4-88.9). The mOS of modified PD-1 inhibitors group and Pembrolizumab group were 30.7 (95%CI, 17.3-44.4) months and 26.8 (95%CI, 22.2-31.4) months. The mPFS of two groups were 8.3(95%CI, 6.9-9.6) months and 8.8 (95%CI, 6.9-10.7) months, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of OS or PFS. The ORR for the two groups was 48.2% (95%CI, 34.8-61.8) and 47.3% (95%CI, 39.1-5.6), respectively. However, due to the limited sample size, the difference was not statistically significant. On the other hand, the DCR tended to be higher in the Pembrolizumab group (86.5%; 95%CI, 79.7-91.4) compared to the modified PD-1 inhibitors group (78.6%; 95%CI, 65.2-87.9), and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006). In terms of safety, both groups exhibited favorable clinical safety profiles. The only two types of potentially immune-related adverse events reported were pneumonitis and reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified PD-1 inhibitors showed comparable survival outcomes and manageable safety profiles in NSCLC compared to Pembrolizumab. Moreover, these inhibitors exhibited improved accessibility and economic outcomes compared to Pembrolizumab. While there were similarities in drug-related and immunotherapy-related adverse reactions between the modified PD-1 inhibitors and Pembrolizumab, there were some slight differences. Further prospective and retrospective studies would be necessary to validate these findings beyond the scope of the CTONG1901 study.

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 of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process.

FINDINGS

Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (L/M NPC) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A Markov model consisting of four health states, progression-free survival, first progression survival, second progression survival and death, was built to simulate 3-week patient transitions over a 20-year horizon. A direct comparison between first-line camrelizumab in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus cisplatin was performed by calculating transition probabilities from the CAPTAIN-1st trial. Costs and utilities were collected from the local public database and literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed to evaluate the robustness of the model.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of Chinese patients with pathologically diagnosed L/M NPC who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

INTERVENTIONS

First-line camrelizumab in combination with camrelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (CGP) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The baseline analysis demonstrated that, compared with first-line GP, first-line CGP yields an effectiveness increase of 0.26 QALY, accompanied by an increment of US$6137.59 in healthcare cost. This results in an ICER of US$23 482.32/QALY. With the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for a QALY set at US$37 654.50, first-line CGP proves to be cost-effective in 97.20% of the iterations. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters had no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that CGP was cost-effective at the assumed WTP threshold.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese patients with L/M NPC, adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab to the first-line GP chemotherapy may be cost-effective.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy (TC) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), excluding patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and EGFR/ALK mutations. It further analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in biomarker-based subgroups, all within the context of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

Eighteen Markov models with 21-day Markov cycle lengths and 30-year time horizons were constructed in this study. Clinical effectiveness data were derived from the CHOICE-01 trial. Health state utilities and costs data were obtained from various sources. The primary outputs were the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were then compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $17,961 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This comparison was used to determine the treatment that offered greater cost-effectiveness. To account for uncertainty in the model, sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For the overall patient population, the estimated ICER between first-line TC and placebo plus chemotherapy (PC) was $9445/QALY, significantly lower than the WTP threshold used in the model. In subgroups based on pathologic types, first-line TC had an ICER of $16,757/QALY for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, slightly below the WTP threshold; first-line TC demonstrated dominance in patients with squamous NSCLC, indicating both better effectiveness and lower costs compared to first-line PC. In biomarkers-based subgroups, first-line TC was dominant over first-line PC in the subgroups with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50% and SMARCA4 mutations. Moreover, first-line TC had ICERs lower than the WTP threshold in other subgroups, except for the subgroup with RB1 mutations. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study's findings suggested that first-line TC represents a cost-effective strategy for patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the cost-effectiveness of first-line TC varied across different subgroups when considering predictive biomarkers.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

Objectives: A cost-effectiveness study of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China was conducted versus chemotherapy alone. Methods: Survival data were derived from CameL-Sq. Cost-effectiveness is indicated by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness-to-pay threshold. The partitioned survival model stability was assessed by sensitivity analyses. Results: With camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.83, and cost increased by $21,259/patient versus chemotherapy. The ICER was $25,674/quality-adjusted life year. The probability of cost-effectiveness was >90% regardless of PD-L1 expression level. Regardless of the variation in each parameter across a wide range, the ICER never transcended the willingness to pay. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the healthcare system in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-005 trial showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy (SEP) significantly extended survival time compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. But the survival benefits of SEP came at high costs, and its economy is not clear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SEP from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partition survival model was built to simulate the outcomes. The clinical data came from the ASTRUM-005 trial, and only direct medical costs were included in the model. The utility values referred to the published literature. Scenario analyses 1 and 2 explored outcomes in the presence of a patient assistance plan (PAP) and different simulation periods, respectively. Scenario analysis 3 compared the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (AEP) with SEP by network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP achieved an additional 0.34 QALYs at incremental costs of US$41 682.63, with an ICER of US$122 378.86/QALY. When PAP was available, ICER was US$58 316.46/QALY. In the simulation time of 5 years and 20 years, the ICER was US$132 637.97/QALY and US$118 054.59/QALY, respectively. When compared with AEP, SEP not only reduced the costs by US$47 244.87 but also gained 0.07 QALYs more. Sensitivity analyses showed that the price of serplulimab and the utility value of the progression-free survival stage were the main influencing parameters, and the results were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP was not cost-effective from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. However, SEP was absolutely dominant in comparison with AEP.

The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background: The EMPOWER-LUNG 3 clinical trial has shown that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (CCT) significantly extended overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (PCT). However, the cost-effectiveness of this new treatment option remains unknown. Thus, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CCT versus (vs.) PCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The transition probabilities were extracted from the survival data of the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial. The drugs' costs were referred from national tender prices, while other model input parameters were derived from the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial and published literature. The outcome parameters mainly included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: Compared to PCT, in the CCT regimen, an additional $79,667 was spent in terms of the total cost and with an additional 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER value of $253,148/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the hazard ratio (HR) of OS, the cost of cemiplimab (100 mg), and the HR of PFS, all significantly impacted the model's results. The probability of CCT (vs. PCT) being cost-effective was 0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALYs in China. The scenario analysis showed that when the price of cemiplimab was reduced to less than $184.09/100 mg, the CCT regimen could be considered cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC compared to the PCT. Conclusion: In China, the CCT was not cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

A trial-based cost-utility analysis of sugemalimab vs. placebo as consolidation therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC in China

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of sugemalimab vs. placebo in post-chemoradiotherapy patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC has been demonstrated and approved by China National Medical Products Administration. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab vs. placebo for consolidation treatment of stage III NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A 3-state Markov model with a 3-week cycle length was performed to appraise the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of sugemalimab consolidation therapy based on the GEMSTONE-301 clinical trial over a 10-year time horizon. Only direct medical costs, including costs of drug (maintenance and subsequent treatment), routine follow-up, best supportive care, and terminal care in end of life were considered in this model. Costs and health utilities were obtained from local databases and published articles. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were adopted to evaluate the model uncertainty. Internal and external data sources were used to justify the plausibility of the extrapolated portion of the survival model chosen.

RESULTS

In comparison with the placebo, sugemalimab consolidation therapy was not cost-effective as it yielded an ICUR value of $90,277 and $49,692 for the concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) and the sequential chemoradiotherapy (sCRT) population at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663/QALYs, respectively. When taking the sugemalimab patient assistance program (PAP) into consideration, sugemalimab consolidation therapy was cost-effective with an ICUR dramatic decreases below the WTP. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICUR was most sensitive to the discount rate and subsequent treatment. However, none of the sensitive parameters could affect the cost-effective conclusions without or with PAP. Scenario analyses revealed that the model was particularly affected by assumptions regarding discount in sugemalimab, time horizon, mean duration of sugemalimab maintenance treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, sugemalimab consolidation therapy was not a cost-effective strategy in cCRT and sCRT patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Given that the sugemalimab PAP was available, sugemalimab consolidation therapy became a cost-effective option.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy in advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in China

BACKGROUND

This study compares first-line toripalimab with chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A three-state Markov model was established to compare the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Clinical outcomes data were acquired from the CHOICE-01 clinical trials. Costs and utilities were gathered from regional databases or published publications. One-way sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the stability of the model parameters.

RESULTS

First-line toripalimab treatment for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC resulted in an incremental cost of $16,214.03 and added 0.77 QALYs compared to chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $21,057.18 per QALY gained. The ICER was substantially lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold in China, which was $37,663.26 per QALY. The toripalimab cycle used was shown to have the greatest impact on the ICERs, according to sensitivity analysis, although none of the factors significantly affected the model's outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer from the Chinese perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data for our model was taken from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. The direct costs and utilities were collected from local price databases or previously published literature. A three-state partitioned survival model was designed to simulate the disease process of patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. All costs were estimated in US dollars, with an annual RMB exchange rate of $1 to 6.45 Yuan in 2021. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at US$37,663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on the model parameters.

RESULTS

For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score greater than 1,compared to the chemotherapy group, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy contributed an incremental 1.12 Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of US$71,884.42, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$64,338.19, which is beyond the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China. According to sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were most sensitive to the utility of progressive disease and the cost of pembrolizumab. However, those parameters had no significant impact on the model's outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pembrolizumab to various therapy combinations chemotherapy is exorbitant and may not be cost-effective for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: Evidence from China

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic or advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genetic aberrations in patients in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC from a Chinese healthcare perspective. Survival analysis was performed to calculate the proportion of patients in each state using data from trial NCT03134872. The cost of drugs was obtained from Menet, and the cost of disease management was obtained from local hospitals. Health state data were obtained from published literature. Both deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy provided 0.41 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $10,482.12. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was $25,375.96/QALY from the Chinese healthcare perspective, much lower than three times the GDP per capita of China in 2021 ($35,936.09) as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The DSA indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the utility value of progression-free survival, followed by the cost of camrelizumab. The PSA illustrated that camrelizumab had 80% probability of being cost-effective at the threshold of $35,936.09 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

The results suggest that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective choice in the first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous NSCLC in China. Although this study has limitations such as short time of use of camrelizumab, no adjustment of Kaplan-Meier curves and the median overall survival that has not been reached, the difference in results caused by these factors is relatively small.

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

Background and objective

Tislelizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line option for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly prolonged survival outcomes; however, evidence regarding its relative efficacy and cost is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone, from the health care perspective in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used for this study. The survival data were obtained from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Incremental net health benefits (INHB), incremental net monetary benefits (INMB), and subgroup analyses were also assessed. Sensitivity analyses were further established to assess the model stability.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 1.48 life-years, and yielded an increase of $16,631 in cost per patient. The INMB and INHB were $7,510 and 0.20 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, respectively. The ICER was $26,162/QALY. The outcomes were most sensitive to the HR of OS for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm. The probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective was 87.66% and >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $86,376/QALY, the probability achieved 99.81%. Furthermore, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective in subgroups of patients with liver metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥50% were 90.61 and 94.35%, respectively.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three state-transition Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Key clinical data in the model were derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826). Costs and utilities were obtained from published literatures. The main endpoints of the model were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an increase in overall cost of $95,867.82 and improved effectiveness of 0.98 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $97,676.24 per QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were hazard ratio for OS and body weight. In probabilistic analysis, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. However, the combination therapy would become cost-effective when the cost of nivolumab and ipilimumab were discounted by 65%.

CONCLUSION

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment for advanced NSCLC was found to be not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China.

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.

Cost‐effectiveness of first‐line versus second‐line use of domestic anti‐PD ‐1 antibody sintilimab in Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non‐small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitor is a promising therapeutic option that can be used as either a first-line or second-line treatment for driver-negative advanced or metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancers (sqNSCLC). However, reuse of PD-1/L1 inhibitor in second-line beyond progression after the first-line is generally not recommended. Therefore, oncologists face challenges in making a proper decision of using PD-1/L1 inhibitor. This analysis aimed to determine whether it is more cost-effective to use sintilimab, a domestic anti-PD-1 drug in China, as a first-line treatment than reserving it until second-line.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the use of sintilimab in the first-line setting with reserving its use until the second-line for driver-negative advanced or metastatic sqNSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. A Markov model composed of five main mutually independent health states and three temporary health states was established to simulate patients' clinical trajectory. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events-related treatment discontinuation, were estimated using data from the ORIENT-12, ORIENT-3, and ALTER0303 clinical trials. The robustness of the model was assessed using deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Reserving the use of sintilimab until the second-line was associated with a greater effectiveness (1.52 vs. 1.37 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and a higher healthcare cost ($12,203 vs. $14,045) compared with the first-line sintilimab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $12,693 per QALY. The results of DSA suggested that variations in all parameters did not result in the ICERs surpassing the willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic sqNSCLC, reserving the use of sintilimab until the second-line represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with the first-line treatment. This finding is useful to inform Chinese healthcare policymakers regarding the optimized treatment strategies of use of domestic PD-1/L1 inhibitors sintilimab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. placebo, in combination with chemotherapy, for treatment of first-line metastatic NSCLC in China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy (SC) vs. placebo plus chemotherapy (PC), as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Material and methods

A three-state Markov model with a cycle of 3 weeks was built to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SC vs. PC as first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC over a 10-year horizon from Chinese health care perspective. Time-dependency transition probability and safety data were derived from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial performed in China (GEMSTONE-302). Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the ICER under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663/QALYs. Deterministic, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to investigate the robustness of model outcomes.

Results

In base-case analysis, compared with PC, first-line SC for intention-to-treat (ITT) population gained an additional 0.57 QALYs with an incremental cost of $62,404.15, resulting in an ICER of $109,480.97/QALYs gained. When a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, the ICER decreased to $52,327.02/QALYs. In subgroup analysis, the ICER values were above the WTP threshold with or without PAP. Sensitivity analysis results suggested that the model outcomes were reliable.

Conclusion

From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, the SC was not cost-effective in comparison to PC as first-line treatment for NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 tumor expression level and pathological subtype.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer in China

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) vs. chemotherapy for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer in China. Methods: A lifetime of partitioned survival Markov was used to evaluate the overall lifetime, total costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) across a 10-years time horizon in the study 309-KEYNOTE-775 clinical trial. Direct costs and utility values were gathered from available literature. The willingness to pay (WTP) was defined at $37,663.26 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the model's uncertainty. Results: According to the baseline analysis, the LP group gained 4.02 total life years and 3.13 QALYs for $93,496.69, whereas the chemotherapy group gained 2.86 total life years and 2.24 QALYs for $30,578.04. LP versus chemotherapy resulted in an incremental cost of $62,918.65, with an ICER of $70,962.09/QALY, which was higher than China's WTP threshold ($37,663.26/QALY). The ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the cycle of LP delivered, according to the sensitivity analysis. However, changing the range of those parameters has no influence on the model's results. Conclusion: Our present analysis suggests that LP treatment is not cost-effective for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer. However, LP treatment may be a cost-effective treatment option if the price is reduced.

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China

Objective

Six anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs), including one domestic (ensartinib) and five imported ALK-TKIs (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), have been recommended as first-line treatments for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China. This study sought to examine the cost-effectiveness of these six novel therapies in Chinese patients.

Material and methods

We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the six ALK-TKIs as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by synthesizing data from the PROFILE 1,029 trial and a network meta-analysis. Health state utilities and costs were sourced from published literature, publicly available national databases, and local general hospitals. The robustness of model was assessed via deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Compared with crizotinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.12 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with marginal costs of $3,249, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,553/ QALY. When compared with ceritinib and brigatinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.06 and 0.03 QALYs with substantially reduced costs. When compared with lorlatinib and alectinib, ensartinib was associated with a lower QALY and decreased total costs; the ICERs for lorlatinib and alectinib were $934,101/ QALY and $164,888/ QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

For Chinese patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, ensartinib was a cost-effective option compared with crizotinib, and was a dominant alternative to ceritinib and brigatinib. Although lorlatinib and alectinib were associated with prolonged survival compared with ensartinib, they were less cost-effective than ensartinib due to the overwhelming total costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

Objective: Sugemalimab is approved in China as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line additional sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model was designed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of first-line sugemalimab combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy over a 10-year period. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from GEMSTONE-302 clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local databases and published literature. The uncertainty of the model parameters was explored through sensitivity analysis. Results: Compared to chemotherapy, sugemalimab treatment for NSCLC resulted in an extra 0.50 QALYs at an additional cost of $73627.99, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 148354.07/QALY at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the primary motivator in this model was the cost of sugemalimab. However, none of the parameters significantly affected the model's results. Conclusion: Sugemalimab combination therapy is not economically advantageous for the first-line management of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, according to the Chinese healthcare system.

Emerging PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: Current status and future perspective in Japan, US, EU, and China

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), one of the deadliest types of cancers worldwide, has been the target of immunotherapy due to its high immune antigenicity. With the addition of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, as an indispensable and powerful regimen for the treatment of this lethal disease, the median survival time for patients with stage IV NSCLC is approximately 2 years. In contrast, the response rate to ICIs remains less than 50%, even if the patients are selected using biomarkers such as PD-L1. Pharmaceutical companies have begun to develop additional anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies to overcome resistance and are devising further immunotherapy combinations. More than 20 anti-PD-1/PD-L1antibodies have been approved or are currently in development. Numerous combination therapies are under development, and several combination therapies have provided positive results in randomized controlled trials. This review aimed to examine the current status of approved and investigational anti-PD-1/PD-L1antibodies for NSCLC in Japan, the United States, the European Union, and China. Further, this review discusses the challenges and future perspectives for developing new ICIs in alignment with the global developments in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab, nivolumab and docetaxel as second- and third-line for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature.

Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab.

Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of “Universal Medical Insurance System”, the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy in (1) a study population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) and without known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements and (2) its subgroups from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Material and Methods: Separate Markov models were constructed for the entire study population and its subgroups; 10,000 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC and without driver gene mutations were simulated in the first-line tislelizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (TPP) arm and first-line pemetrexed-platinum (PP) arm, respectively. Transition probabilities were extracted from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Public health state utilities and costs were obtained from published literature, public national databases, and local general hospitals. The main outputs were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The ICERs were compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to determine the cost-effective treatment. Sensitivity analyses were employed to assess the uncertainty in the model.

Results: For the entire patient population, first-line TPP versus PP use increased the effectiveness by 0.99 QALYs and healthcare costs by $28,749, resulting in an ICER of $28,749/QALY that was lower than the prespecified WTP threshold. For patient subgroups, first-line TPP conferred the greatest survival benefit in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, followed by patients with liver metastasis and those who are current or former smokers. Overall, the ICERs for the first-line TPP versus PP ranged from $27,018/QALYs to $33,074/QALYs, which were consistently below the WTP threshold.

Conclusion: For Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC who had no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, adding the Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to the first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy was cost-effective regardless of their baseline characteristics.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer/Esophagel Adenocarcinoma in China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

This economic evaluation used a state-transition Markov model to assess the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma. The characteristics of patients in the model came from a phase 3 open-label randomized clinical trial (CheckMate 649). Key clinical data were based on the CheckMate 649 trial conducted from March 2017 to April 2019, and costs and utilities were collected from the published literature. The total cost of treatment per patient, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.

Results

In the baseline analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy were 0.28 QALYs and $78,626.53, resulting in an ICER of $278,658.71/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($31,498.70/QALY). The model was sensitive to the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) for the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group, the cost of nivolumab per 100 mg, and the utility of PFS.

Conclusion

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy was clearly not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma in China. Reducing the price of nivolumab may improve its cost-effectiveness.

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.