Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as a maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage Ⅲ nsclc in china

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with Best supportive care (BSC) after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer from healthcare system perspective in China. Methods A dynamic state transition model was adopted to simulate life time, direct medical costs and QALYs. In the base case scenario, for patients with unresectable, stage Ⅲ non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy, the treatment group would use durvalumab whereas the control group would use BSC. Clinical data and health utility were derived from the patient-level data of Asian ethnicity in the PACIFIC trial. Cost of drug acquisition, follow-up, medical service, inspection, terminal care and adverse event treatment were considered in this model. The cost of durvalumab was calculated based on retail prices and Patient Assistance Program. Results In the base case, the durvalumab group yielded an additional 2.60 LYs and 2.37QALYs (discounted), causing an additional cost of 0.459 million RMB and 0.109 million RMB without and with PAP, so the ICER was 193,898 RMB/QALY and 46,093.12 RMB/QALY respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated that durvalumab can improve the survival of patients with unresectable, stage Ⅲ non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and would be a cost-effective option compared with BSC at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 212676 RMB (three times GDP per capita of China in 2019).

A trial-based cost-utility analysis of sugemalimab vs. placebo as consolidation therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC in China

“…Till now, a number of trial-based economic assessments on durvalumab in post-chemoradiotherapy patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective have been reported [ 34 , 38 , 39 ]. The clinical data of these studies were all acquired from the 4-year survival updated PACIFIC clinical trial [ 40 ].…”

“…Health utility values for each health state in our model were derived from previously published studies, as no health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was published in clinical trial. We set the health utility values estimates for PFS and PD was 0.901 and 0.863, respectively [ 34 ]. Furthermore, a half-cycle correction was implemented to the outcomes, according to the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation [ 21 ].…”