Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Versus Chemotherapy as Second-Line Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: a comprehensive analysis

BACKGROUND

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy have become a standard first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Given the high costs associated with immunotherapy, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different PD-1 inhibitors in the Chinese healthcare setting is essential for guiding treatment decisions and policy development.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing six PD-1 inhibitors-sintilimab, toripalimab, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, serplulimab, and pembrolizumab-combined with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced ESCC. A partitioned survival model was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from healthcare system perspective, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set at $36,598.19 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The ICERs for toripalimab, camrelizumab, pembrolizumab, serplulimab, sintilimab, and tislelizumab were $32,356.79/QALY, $48,410.64/QALY, $312,743.54/QALY, $121,200.84/QALY, $29,663.42/QALY, and $35,304.33/QALY, respectively. Sintilimab, toripalimab, and tislelizumab were below the WTP threshold. Among all regimens, the top three in life years (LYs) gained were toripalimab, serplulimab, and tislelizumab. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and drug prices were key factors influencing ICERs. Probabilistic analysis indicated that toripalimab, sintilimab, and tislelizumab had the highest probabilities of being cost-effective, at 83.1%, 81.4%, and 70.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sintilimab, toripalimab, and tislelizumab are the most cost-effective PD-1 inhibitors when combined with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced ESCC in China, with ICERs below the WTP threshold. While all six PD-1 inhibitors demonstrated clinical benefits, pembrolizumab and serplulimab were less favourable from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that drug prices and utility values are significant determinants of cost-effectiveness.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX versus Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The NAPOLI 3 trial demonstrated that compared to the nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (GemNab) regimen, the NALIRIFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, oxaliplatin) regimen can significantly improve patients' overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the safety of this regimen is generally controllable. To ensure the appropriateness of the chosen treatment, economic evaluation is essential. Thus, from the perspective of American healthcare systems, we explored the cost-effectiveness comparison between NALIRIFOX or GemNab in treating patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who had not previously received treatment.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed, incorporating a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length. The efficacy data were sourced from the NAPOLI 3 study, while treatment costs, health state utilities, and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from public databases and literature. Applying an annual discount rate of 3%, the analysis focused on total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as primary outcomes. Conducted within a US healthcare system perspective over a 13-year lifetime horizon, the analysis set willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model's findings.

RESULTS

In our base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX group was estimated to achieve an incremental gain of 0.13 QALYs. Compared to the GemNab group, treatment with NALIRIFOX resulted in higher costs ($150,437 vs $130,683). The ICER for NALIRIFOX therapy was calculated to be $155,602.83/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis revealed the model's robustness across a range of parameters. Through probabilistic sensitivity analysis applying Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 iterations, NALIRIFOX therapy was identified as the cost-effective regimen in 45.7% of all iterations at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with NALIRIFOX strategy was estimated to provide a significant clinical advantage over GemNab. According to the model outcomes, NALIRIFOX therapy is borderline cost-effective for treatment-naive patients with mPDAC, slightly exceeding the highest conventional US willingness-to-pay threshold of 150,000/QALY. However, at lower thresholds, such as 100,000/QALY, NALIRIFOX fails to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in all simulations. In addition, NALIRIFOX therapy emerges as a cost-effective treatment strategy at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds or when the drug price is significantly reduced.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nimotuzumab combined with gemcitabine for K-Ras wild type locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer in China

The phase III NOTABLE trial has revealed that nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine achieves greater clinical benefit in the first-line treating K-Ras wild type locally advanced (LA) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), compared to gemcitabine. Hence, herein, we examined the cost-efficiency of introducing nimotuzumab to gemcitabine, relative to gemcitabinealone, in first-line K-Ras wild type LA or mPC therapy from a Chinese payer perspective. We generated an exhaustive decision-analytical Markov model using three exclusive health states to incorporate both clinical and economic consequences of nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone as first-line therapy patients with K-Ras wild type LA or mPC. Using a 10-year lifetime horizon, we assessed the total medical expenditure, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost‒effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the primary surrogate outcomes of our model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted via alteration of internally tweakable parameters, and further subgroup analyses were conducted as needed. The overall health surrogate outcomes were 2.94 QALYs ($215,799) among patients with nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine and 1.83 QALYs ($86,039) among patients with gemcitabine alone (ICER value, $117,263/QALY; Incremental net health benefit [INHB] value, - 2.46/QALY). Based on our sensitivity analysis, among all parameters, progression-free survival (PFS) utility was of utmost importance, and it exerted a considerable impact on our model. The ICER consistently well exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold and negative INHBs were observed across all patient subcategories with zero alteration recorded as cost-effective in the subgroup analyses. Nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine, relative to gemcitabine alone, is not a cost-effective first-line treatment among patients with K-Ras wild type LA or mPC at the current prices offered in China.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a patient's lifetime based on a phase III clinical trial.

RESULTS

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.316 QALY and 0.285 QALY with the additional cost of $5692 and $5269, which led to the ICER of $18000/QALY and $18519/QALY gained in the overall population and the patients with CPS ≥ 10, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, sintilimab may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC.

First-line chemotherapy with tislelizumab for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

The Phase 3 RATIONALE-312 trial (NCT04005716) showed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy led to a noteworthy enhancement resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival among patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to chemotherapy alone. The treatment also had an acceptable level of safety. Nevertheless, the debate over the efficacy of implementing several treatment plans in competition continues due to the significant expenses involved. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the potential efficacy and cost of tislelizumab treatment as a first-line treatment for the ES-SCLC patient population in China. The study assessed primary health outcomes by measuring life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). This was done using a Markov model considering three health states with a 15-year horizon. To assess its model resilience, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses with probability. In addition, subgroup analyses of some pre-specified patients was performed. Compared to chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.34 ($8,028) QALYs, leading to an ICER of $23,553 per QALY for the overall patient population. The ICER was lower than the assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,367 per QALY. Approximately 60% of simulations suggested that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective, while 40% suggested that chemotherapy alone was cost-effective. The subsequent sensitivity analyses revealed that the health utility value associated with the disease progression parameter had the greatest influence on ICER. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was a preferable treatment option for regimens for patients with ES-SCLC in China. This finding is important in guiding the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of utidelone and capecitabine versus monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer

Background

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combining utidelone with capecitabine, compared to capecitabine monotherapy, for the treatment of anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer within the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was formulated based on patient characteristics from the NCT02253459 trial. Efficacy, safety, and health economics data were sourced from the trial and real-world clinical practices. We derived estimates for costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the two treatment strategies. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to rigorously evaluate uncertainties' impact.

Results

Over a 5-year span, the combination therapy manifested substantially higher costs than capecitabine monotherapy, with a differential of US$ 26,370.63. This combined approach conferred an additional 0.49 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of US$ 53,874.17/QALY. Utilizing the established willingness-to-pay threshold, the combination might not consistently be deemed cost-effective when juxtaposed against monotherapy. However, at an ICER of US$ 53,874.4/QALY, the probability of the combination being cost-effective increased to 48.97%. Subgroup analysis revealed that the combination was more cost-effective than capecitabine alone in specific patient groups, including those <60 years, patients with more than two chemotherapy rounds, patients lacking certain metastases, patients having limited metastatic sites, patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0, and patients with particular hormone receptor profiles.

Conclusion

Although the combination of utidelone and capecitabine may not be an economically viable universal choice for anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer, it could be more cost-effective in specific patient subgroups than capecitabine monotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors as the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in prolonging overall survival (OS) as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and were recommended by the guidelines. However, it remains uncertain which ICI is the most cost-effective. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICIs as the second-line treatment for ESCC based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain the Hazard ratios (HRs) for indirect comparisons. A three-state Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness. The state transition probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves data from clinical trial and HRs from the NMA. Utilities and costs were derived from local charges or previously published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to examine model robustness. The results were assessed based on the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Five clinical trials (ATTRACTION-3, ESCORT, KEYNOTE-181, ORIENT-2, RATIONALE-302) with a total of 1797 patients were included in the NMA. The NMA showed that both camrelizumab and tislelizumab received relatively high rankings for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Compared with sintilimab, treatment with tislelizumab and camrelizumab gained 0.018 and 0.034 additional QALYs, resulting in incremental ICERs of $75,472.65/QALY and $175,681.9/QALY, respectively. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab produced lower QALYs and greater costs, suggesting that both were dominated in comparison to sintilimab. HRs and health state utilities were the most influential parameters in most univariate sensitivity analyses of paired comparisons. PSA results suggested that sintilimab had an 84.4% chance of being the most cost-effective treatment regimen at the WTP threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. In the scenario analysis, sintilimab would no longer be cost-effective, if the price of camrelizumab was assumed to decrease by 64.6% or the price of tislelizumab was assumed to decrease by 16.9%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among the five potential competing ICIs, sintilimab was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China.

METHODS

From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design

A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods

A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

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.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Background

Treating persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer remains challenging. Although pembrolizumab, combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, offers a promising first-line option, its cost-effectiveness within the Chinese healthcare system has not been established.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed using patient data from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. Efficacy, safety, and economic data from both trial and real-world practices were utilized to determine the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the treatment strategies. Comprehensive insights were gained through the sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

Over five years, the combination of pembrolizumab, chemotherapy, and bevacizumab offered an additional 1.18 QALYs compared to that provided by standard treatments. This regimen increased the costs by US$ 134,502.57, resulting in an ICER of US$ 114,275.67 per QALY, relative to traditional treatment costs. The ICER for the pembrolizumab regimen was further calibrated to be US$ 52,765.69 per QALY. Both ICER values surpassed China's established willingness-to-pay threshold. Importantly, subgroup analysis revealed enhanced cost-effectiveness in patients presenting with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥10.

Conclusion

Introducing pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy and bevacizumab may not be a cost-effective primary strategy for advanced cervical cancer against current standards. However, for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥10, the therapeutic and economic outcomes could be improved by adjusting the pembrolizumab price.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab in combination with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy compared to cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Background

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in treating advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) within the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model based on ASTRUM-007 trial patient characteristics was developed. Efficacy, safety, and medical/economic data were obtained from the trial and real-world clinical practice. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for both treatment strategies. Sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty impact.

Results

Serplulimab combined with chemotherapy yielded an ICER of US$ 53,538.27/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified patient survival and serplulimab price as influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 47.33% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$ 53,541/QALY and 0.05% at three times China's GDP per capita. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression combined positive score (CPS) ⩾10 had a lower hazard ratio (0.59) and ICER (US$ 29,935.23/QALY), with a 95.36% probability of cost-effectiveness. Scenario analysis demonstrated that the drug donation discount policy significantly increased the likelihood of cost-effective serplulimab-chemotherapy combinations in Jiangsu, Fujian, and Guangdong at 99.99%, 99.90%, and 94.16%, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to chemotherapy alone, serplulimab combined with chemotherapy is currently not a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic ESCC in China. However, as serplulimab plus chemotherapy regimens evolve and price competition among programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors intensifies, this combination may become a cost-effective treatment option.

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 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.

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 analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The KEYNOTE-590 trial showed that individuals with advanced esophageal cancer who received Pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line regimen achieved a significant extension of survival. However, this treatment option increases the financial burden on patients and the economic benefits remain to be further evaluated.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year survival of patients with esophageal cancer from the perspective of United States (US) Medicare payers. We evaluated the economics of Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the PD-L1 positive score (CPS ≥10) and any PD-L1 expression groups, respectively. We estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the results. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The analysis results showed that the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $293,513.17/QALYs in the any PD-L1 expression group. This exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay ($150,000/QALYs). ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the ICERs exceeded $150,000/QALYs in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that first-line pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for advanced esophageal cancer in the US, regardless of PD-L1 expression status.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer based on the TOPAZ-1 trial

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin has a significant clinical benefit for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, the high price of durvalumab warrants an exploration of the economics.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin in first-line therapy of advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

According to the TOPAZ-1 trial, a three-state Markov model was built by the TreeAge Pro 2022 software. The total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. The triple 2021 Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $37,663.26/QALY was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Outputs were analyzed for two scenarios with and without a durvalumab drug charity assistance policy. In the scenario analysis, the base-case model was run multiple times with different prices of durvalumab to determine the effect on the ICER. Moreover, the robustness of the model was tested through sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, durvalumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.12 QALY and an incremental cost of $18,555.19, the ICER was $159,644.70/QALY under the situation of charity assistance, and the ICER was $696,571.11/QALY without charity assistance, both exceeding the WTP threshold in China. The scenario analysis demonstrated that when the price of durvalumab fell by more than 94.2% to less than $0.33/mg, durvalumab plus chemotherapy will be more economical compared with chemotherapy alone under the situation of no charity assistance. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of durvalumab had the greatest influence on the ICERs, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that durvalumab plus chemotherapy was impossible to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold whether the charity assistance was available or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin was not cost-effective for advanced BTC regardless of receiving and not receiving charitable assistance.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Background: Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis and currently ranks sixth in global cancer mortality rates. The ORIENT-15 trial showed sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, plus chemotherapy in treating patients with esophageal cancer compared with chemotherapy alone. Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year horizon was developed based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare payers. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for sintilimab combined with chemotherapy based on a questionnaire. Patients were grouped into the sintilimab group based on a positive score of 10 or more (combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 groups), and those with any other PD-L1 expression were randomized into patient groups. We estimated the cost and the effectiveness of sintilimab on the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness results. Results: In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, the ICER of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for all patients was $21024.05 per QALY, and in the CPS≥10 group, it was $20974.23 per QALY. This was lower than $37653 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that ICERs were most sensitive to the price of sintilimab. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer as its first-line treatment would be more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone in Chinese patients.

Economic evaluation of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Background and purpose: The latest RATIONALE-302 trial (NCT03430843) showed that tislelizumab therapy significantly improved overall survival benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) compared with traditional chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to predict patients' lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Chinese healthcare payers' perspective. We extracted efficacy and safety data from the RATIONALE-302 trial and the local cost and resource use data from online databases and published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore model uncertainty. Results: Compared with chemotherapy, tislelizumab generated a higher cost (US$ 10211.78 vs. US$ 7294.72) but yielded more QALY (0.78 vs. 0.51 QALYs). The ICER for tislelizumab was US$11073.85 per QALY gained. The PSA results indicated that the probability of tislelizumab being economical was 76% under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1.5 times per capita GDP ($17915) in China. Conclusion: Tislelizumab could be a promising cost-effective strategy as the second-line treatment for patients with ESCC compared with chemotherapy in the Chinese setting.

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

Objective

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients from a healthcare system perspective in China.

Methods

On the basis of the CheckMate 648 trial, a partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate economic costs and health outcomes among overall and PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC patients over a 10-year lifetime horizon. The health-related costs and utilities were obtained from the local charges and published literature. The lifetime costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

In the base-case analysis, in overall and PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC patients, the ICERs were $415,163.81/QALY and $216,628.00/QALY for nivolumab plus chemotherapy, and$430,704.11/QALY and $185,483.94/QALY for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, respectively, compared with chemotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that patients’ weight was the most influential parameter on ICER. The PSA demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab combination therapy being cost-effective was 0% over chemotherapy at the current price and willingness-to-pay threshold ($38,351.20/QALY). When the price of nivolumab and ipilimumab decreased 80%, the cost-effective probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased to 40.44% and 86.38% in overall and PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Nivolumab combination therapy could improve survival time and health benefits over chemotherapy for advanced ESCC patients, but it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Immunotherapy vs. Paclitaxel or Docetaxel Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in China

This study aimed to evaluate and compare nivolumab's cost-effectiveness with chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. To this end, the researchers utilized a partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health stages. The characteristics of the patients used as inclusion and exclusion criteria in this model were the same as those used for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the ATTRACTION-3 study. The ATTRACTION-3 trial, which took place between January 7, 2016 and November 12, 2018, also yielded important clinical data. Data on medical and economic preferences were collected from real-world clinical practices. Costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for the two therapy options. The model uncertainty was investigated using a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. When compared to chemotherapy, nivolumab was linked with an increase of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years with an increased cost of US$ 36,956.81 per patient in the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 419 patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the deterministic sensitivity analysis was US$ 132,029.46/quality-adjusted life year, with a 48.02% probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$ 132,029.22/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained greater than US$ 80,000/quality-adjusted life year in the deterministic sensitivity analyses. To be more cost-effective and remain below the threshold of 37,653 US$/quality-adjusted life year, which the Chinese population can afford, nivolumab's price would have to be lowered sharply by 53.50%. Nivolumab is clinically beneficial but not cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy. A substantial reduction in nivolumab's drug acquisition cost would be necessary to make it cost-effective for immunotherapy.

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

Objective: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer from the healthcare system perspective in China.

Methods: Based on the KEYNOTE-590 trial, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy, respectively. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and subgroup analyses were adapted to test the model robustness.

Result: Compared with the placebo group, pembrolizumab group obtained an additional 1.05 QALY, but the cost was also increased by $121,478.76. The ICER was $115,391.84 per QALY gained, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31,304.31. The results of One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and per cycle cost of pembrolizumab. At a WTP threshold of $31,304.31, the probability of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0%.

Conclusion: From the perspective of China healthcare system, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with advanced oesophageal cancer compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or More

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the economics of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and programmed cell death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more in China.

METHODS

Based on the advanced ESCC of the KEYNOTE-590 clinical trial data, a Markov model was performed to simulate the clinical course and evaluate the patient's total lifetime, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) vs. chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment of ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published literature data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the stability of the model.

RESULTS

The baseline analysis indicated that the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone added 1.23 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $51,320.22, which had an ICER of $41,805.12/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($37,663.26/QALY). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to the cycle of pembrolizumab used and the cost of pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSION

The result of our present analysis suggests that the addition of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment might not be cost-effective for patients with ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more in China.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF.

RESULTS

PPF yielded 0.386-0.607 QALYs (0.781-1.195 LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Esophageal Cancer Based on the KEYNOTE-181 Study

Background and Purpose

The KEYNOTE-181 study demonstrated that pembrolizumab for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 had a survival advantage and better tolerability than chemotherapy. However, at the same time, pembrolizumab places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab based on the KEYNOTE181 study.

Materials and Methods

A three-state Markov model [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death] based on data from the KEYNOTE-181 study was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer. The model evaluates the outcomes from the Chinese society's perspective. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2021 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model robustness.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab increased costs by $37,201.68, while gaining 0.23 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $163,165.26 per QALY in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. The ICER is $202,708.62 per QALY and $163,643.19 per QALY in the total population and patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. The ICER was much higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($11,105.8 per QALY). One-way and sensitivity analyses showed that the costs of pembrolizumab and the utility of PD were the crucial factors in determining the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated pembrolizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $11,105.8 per QALY. The result was robust across sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of esophageal cancer from the perspective of Chinese society.