No abstract

Background: In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups. Conclusions: Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

No abstract

Background: The CheckMate 227 trial has indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy significantly increases long-term survival in the first-line setting of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy as the first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC based on outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 trial. We calculated the cost and health outcomes at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in populations with different programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥50, ≥1, and <1%) or a high tumor mutational burden (TMB) (≥10 mutations per megabase). Sensitivity analysis were used to test the model stability.

Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost.Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model.Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively.Conclusion: From the Chinese payer’s perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.