Dataset Information

First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Various therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain.

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers.

Design

A network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study.

Data sources and methods

A NMA was conducted to collect all first-line strategies with aHCC from 1 October 1 2018 until 1 January 2022. The relevant randomized controlled trial literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the last 3 years were searched. The abstracts of meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and American Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. A Markov model that included three states was developed. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to investigate the uncertainty of the economic evaluation. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the economic benefits of treatment strategies in low-income populations.

Results

Base-case analysis in China included 1712 patients showed that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, sintilimab combined with bevacizumab, lenvatinib (LEVA), and sorafenib (SORA) added 0.46, 1.25, 0.77, and -1.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, compared with donafenib, resulting in an incremental cost-effective ratio of $85607.88, $12109.27, and $1651.47 per QALY at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $11101.70/QALY. In the United States, only the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SORA was higher that were lower than the WTP threshold ($69375/QALY), and LEVA was the most cost-effective strategy with the ICERs were 25022.13/QALY.

Conclusion

The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that LEVA is the favorite choice in the first-line treatment of Chinese aHCC patients and US payers' perspective when the WTP was $11101.70/QALY in China and $69375.0/QALY in the United States.

Registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42021286575.

SUBMITTER: Sun KX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9742927 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States.

Sun Ke-Xin KX Cao Shan-Shan SS Shi Feng-Hao FH Guan Yue Y Tang Meng M Zhao Mei-Na MN Jian Yu-Fan YF Cui Bin B Li Zhi-Yan ZY Wang Jing-Wen JW Yu Feng F Ding Yi Y

Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology 20221209

<h4>Background</h4>Various therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers.<h4>Design</h4>A network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study.<h4>Data sources and methods</h4>A NMA was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 36518883

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were −0.15 QALYs and −$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.MethodsWe used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.ResultsFor clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.ConclusionsGefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.

Project description:BackgroundCabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.MethodsA Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsOur analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Project description:Purpose: Results from the LAUNCH trial suggest transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in combination with lenvatinib is significantly more effective than lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost of TACE is substantial. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of TACE in combination with lenvatinib (TACE-LEN) with that of lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models of different health states were constructed to simulate first-line treatment, disease progression, and survival in patients with advanced HCC. Clinical efficacy was obtained from the LAUNCH trial. The cost of drugs was sourced from national tender prices, and the treatment cost of weight-decreased was obtained from the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Prices. Other costs and utility values were based on the published literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comprised the model output. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate model robustness and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: Analysis of the model showed that compared to lenvatinib, TACE-LEN improved effectiveness by 1.60 QALYs at a total cost increase of $48,874.69, with an ICER value of $30,482.13/QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the progression-free survival utility value per year had the greatest impact on the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TACE-LEN had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value was $38,201/QALY (three times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2022). Subgroup analysis showed that all subgroups of patients preferred TACE-LEN. However, when the WTP threshold was below $30,300/QALY, TACE-LEN is no longer cost-effective. Conclusion: Our study found TACE-LEN to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, but not so in low-income provinces in China.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients.Materials and methodsSurvival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.ResultsWe compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction.ConclusionFirst-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Dataset Information

First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States.

Background

Objectives

Design

Data sources and methods

Results

Conclusion

Registration

Publications

First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets