Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Rivoceranib Versus Sorafenib as a First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Chinese Health Care System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed significant clinical benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess its cost effectiveness from the perspective of Chinese health care system.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the Phase 3 randomized CARES-310 clinical trial data. Health state utility values were obtained from the CARES-310 clinical trial, and direct medical costs were derived from the relevant literature and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were 0.41 QALYs and $13,684.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $33,619.98/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were $35,920.01 and $29,717.98 in patients with ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of camrelizumab, the proportion of patients receiving subsequent treatment in the camrelizumab plus rivoceranib group, and the cost of rivoceranib were the most significant factors in the base-case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of cost effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib were 61.27%, 51.46%, and 82.78% for any grade, and ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was more cost effective than sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in the Chinese setting.

Economic evaluation of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was established to track 3-week patients' transition and project the health and economic outputs in 15-year horizon of the two competing options among sintilimab and docetaxel. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENT-3 trial, and cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes.

RESULTS

Base-case results revealed that sintilimab yield marginal cost of $4,700.53 and additional 0.32 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $14,615.31 per QALY gained, which is lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,224/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of best supportive care was the main driver of the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model outputs were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Sintilimab could be considered the cost-effective second-line strategy for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC compared with docetaxel in China.

Research progress of targeted therapy combined with immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a common gastrointestinal malignancy with a high mortality rate and limited treatment options. Molecularly targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown unique advantages over single-agent applications, significantly prolonging patient survival. This paper reviews the research progress of molecular-targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and discusses the effectiveness and safety of the combination of the two drugs to provide a reference for the further application of molecular-targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice.

First-line systemic treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but may increase cost. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of oral multikinase inhibitors and ICIs in the first-line treatment of patients with aHCC.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model was established to study the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers. The key outcomes in this study were total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The total costs and QALYs of sorafenib, sunitinib, donafenib, lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sintilimab plus IBI305, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were $9070 and 0.25, $9362 and 0.78, $33,814 and 0.45, $49,120 and 0.83, $63,064 and 0.81, $74,814 and 0.82, $81,995 and 0.82, $74083 and 0.85, and $104,188 and 0.84, respectively. The drug regimen with the lowest ICER was sunitinib ($551 per QALY), followed by lenvatinib ($68,869 per QALY). For oral multikinase inhibitors, the ICER of lenvatinib, sorafenib plus erlotinib, linifanib and brivanib compared with sunitinib was $779576, $1534,347, $1768,971, and $1963,064, respectively. For ICIs, sintilimab plus IBI305 is more cost effective than atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The model was most sensitive to the price of sorafenib, the utility of PD, and the price of second-line drugs.

CONCLUSION

For oral multikinase inhibitors, the order of possible treatment options is sunitinib > lenvatinib > sorafenib plus erlotinib > linifanib > brivanib > donafenib. For ICIs, the order of possible treatment options is sintilimab plus IBI305 > atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this high-priced therapy is currently unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as fist-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost and effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of OSCC. Key clinical data in the model came from the ORIENT-15 trial. Costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and model stability. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed.

Results

Treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.37 QALYs and an incremental cost of $8,046.58 compared with chemotherapy, which resulted in an ICER of $21,782.24 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to utility of progression-free survival (PFS) and the cost of sintilimab. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0.01%, 76.80% and 98.60% at the threshold of 1, 2 or 3 times GDP per capita per QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups other than PD-L1 expression combined positive scores < 1 subgroup favored sintilimab plus chemotherapy treatment due to its association with positive INHBs by varying the hazard ratios for OS and PFS. The scenario analyses showed altering the time horizon of the model or fitting survival curves separately did not reverse results of the model.

Conclusion

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with improved QALYs and an additional cost but was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC at the commonly adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (SIDCHM) is more effective than placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM) for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, considering the high cost of sintilimab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SIDCHM in comparison with PLCHM for advanced or metastatic ESCC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Polymorphic Markov models were constructed to simulate the course and cost of SIDCHM. Treatment drug costs were calculated at national list prices and clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from the reference literature. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was verified by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results

SIDCHM obtained 1.03 QALYs at $24,044.49, whereas the effectiveness and cost of PLCHM were 0.67 QALYs and $14,166.24, respectively. The ICER for SIDCHM versus PLCHM was $23,458.08/QALY. The utility of the PFS state was the parameter that had the greatest effect on the ICER. The PSA showed that SIDCHM had an 86% probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3* Chinese gross domestic product per capita ($37,653/QALY).

Conclusion

From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, SIDCHM is considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PLCHM as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic ESCC.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

In recent years, programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors, including sintilimab, have significantly prolonged the overall survival time of patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as first-line treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC.

Methods

A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar vs. lenvatinib for advanced HCC from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. The clinical and safety data were derived from two recent randomized clinical trials, the ORIENT-32 and REFLECT studies. Utility data were obtained from previous studies. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the model.

Results

Compared with lenvatinib, combination therapy with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar yielded an additional 0.493 QALYs at a higher cost ($33,102 vs. $21,037) (2021 US dollars). This resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,462 per QALY in the base-case analysis. The ICERs were sensitive to the utility of post-progression and the cost of bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower ICER was estimated when the dose of bevacizumab biosimilar decreased from 15 mg to 7.5 mg per kilogram in the scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of being cost-effective for sintilimab treatment at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of one ($12,516) and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China ($37,547) were 11.6% and 88.6%, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic HCC in China when WTP threshold is over $23,650.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Background: The findings of the CAPSTONE-1 trial showed that adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy (etoposide-carboplatin) (ADCHM) is clinically beneficial as a first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), compared with placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM, etoposide-carboplatin). However, owing to the higher cost of adebrelimab, it is unclear whether ADCHM is cost-effective compared with PLCHM. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods: A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment option with ES-SCLC. Clinical data were obtained from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs of the drug were calculated at national tender prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes included life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to validate the robustness of the model.

Results: The ADCHM group achieved 1.21 QALYs (2.47 LYs) for $25,312, whereas the PLCHM group achieved 0.81 QALYs (1.59 LYs) for $14,846. The ICER for ADCHM versus PLCHM was $25914 per QALY gained. The variables with the greatest impact on the model results were the utility value of progressive disease, the utility value of progression-free survival, and the price of adebrelimab (100 mg). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY, ADCHM had an 89.1% probability of being cost-effective compared with PLCHM.

Conclusion: ADCHM may be a cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.