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.

Background and purpose: The TASTE trial indicated that patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) using edaravone dexborneol have a significantly higher proportion of 90-day good functional outcomes (mRS 0–1) than those using edaravone. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned interventions in treating AIS in the Chinese setting, aiming to inform treatment decisions in clinical practice.Methods: A model combining a decision tree and a Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus edaravone for AIS over a 30-year time horizon from the Chinese healthcare system’s perspective. Both efficacy and safety data were extracted from the TASTE study. Local costs and utilities were derived from publications and open-access databases; both cost and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to ensure robustness and identify the main drivers of the result.Results: Compared with edaravone, edaravone dexborneol for AIS was found to be cost-effective in the first year and highly cost-effective as the study time horizons extended. In the long term (30 years), edaravone dexborneol yielded a lifetime gain of 0.25 (0.07–0.45) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of CNY 2201.07 (-3,445.24–6,637.23), yielding an ICER of CNY 8823.41 per QALY gained under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 1.5 times per capita GDP (121,464 CNY). The result is robust in both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) methods, with the advantage of the edaravone dexborneol strategy increasing over time. Specifically, the probability of edaravone dexborneol dominant dexborneol is 76.30%, 98.90%, and 99.50% over 1-, 5-, and 30-year time horizons.Conclusion: Both short- and long-term economic analyses suggest that edaravone dexborneol is highly likely to be a cost-effective alternative to treat AIS compared with edaravone in China.

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.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a recently approved first-line therapy (adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone) for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the US and China, and to estimate the reasonable range of adebrelimab price from the decision-makers.Methods: Several partitioned survival models were built to compare the cost and effectiveness of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. Sensitivity, scenario and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the uncertainty of the model outcomes. Price simulation was conducted at three thresholds of willingness-to-pay (WTP), including WTP of $100,000 in the US and of $37,422 in China, 0.5WTP of $50,000 in the US and of $18,711 in China, and 1.5WTP of 150,000 in the US and of $56,133 in China.Findings: Base-case analysis at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $100,000, but not in China at the WTP threshold of $37,422. If PAP was taken into account, the regimen would be cost-effective in China at the given WTP. The results of price simulation indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy was completely favored in the US if adebrelimab price was less than $8894.98/600 mg (total quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] were calculated with progression-based utility [PB-utility]) or $8912.51/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with time-to-death utility [TTD-utility]) at the WTP threshold of $100,000; if adebrelimab price was reduced by at least $202.03/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with PB-utility) or $103.06/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with TTD-utility), the regimen was also cost-effective in China without PAP at the WTP threshold of $37,422. The above results were stable in the sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analysis found that the subgroup with better survival benefits tended to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, which was also associated with adebrelimab price.Implications: First-line adebrelimab plus chemotherapy represented a dominant treatment strategy comparing with chemotherapy alone in the US and also did in China with PAP at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price. Decision-makers could benefit from pricing strategy provided by this study in making optimal decisions. More evidences were needed to verify and improve the results.