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.

BackgroundSintilimab 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.MethodsPolymorphic 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).ResultsSIDCHM 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).ConclusionFrom 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.

Background: In the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancers (BTCs), XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) showed comparable clinical efficacy and safety to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX), with fewer visits and better treatment management. Our study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX as the first-line therapy for BTCs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare systems and to provide valuable suggestions for clinical decision-making.Methods: A Markov model was developed using the phase 3 randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470443) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used as the primary outcomes of the model. Uncertainty was assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: The QALYs for the XELOX and GEMOX groups were 0.66 and 0.54, respectively. In China, the total cost of XELOX treatment is US $12,275.51, which is lower than that of the GEMOX regimen. In addition, XELOX is more effective than GEMOX, making it the preferred regimen. A sensitivity analysis determined that XELOX therapy has a stable economic advantage in China.Conclusion: Compared to GEMOX, XELOX is a more cost-effective treatment as a first-line treatment for advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.