First-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yi L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11257869 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China due to its high costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of the comparison between the regimens of ICIs plus chemotherapy were remained unclear yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICIs plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsA network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirect compare the clinical benefits between the ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens. A decision-analytic model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the Chinese healthcare system, the clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from the clinical trials and the results of NMA. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously studies. Key outputs of the NMA were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes.ResultsFive clinical trials (IMpower133, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, CA184-156, and EA5161) of 1,255 patients received first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies were analyzed in the NMA. NMA showed that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher than other strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy achieved relatively higher health benefits and lower costs. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of ICIs had the substantial impact on model outcomes. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the probability of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be considered cost-effective was more than 50% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,313/QALY in China. In scenario analyses, when the price of nivolumab reduced 80%, the probability of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was more than 50%.ConclusionsThe NMA and cost-effectiveness revealed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is the most favorable first-line treatment for previously untreated ES-SCLC patients compared other ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens in China. The price reduction of nivolumab would make nivolumab plus chemotherapy be the most cost-effective option in future possible context.
| S-EPMC8807476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe ASTRUM-005 trial (NCT04063163) revealed that combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy (etoposide and carboplatin [EC]) treatment was associated with survival advantages relative to chemotherapy alone in patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). As these immuno-chemotherapeutic regimens are extremely expensive, however, it is critical that the relative cost-effectiveness of combination serplulimab and chemotherapy treatment as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC patients be examined in detail.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of combined serplulimab plus chemotherapeutic treatment was examined using a comprehensive Markov model with a 10-year boundary, enabling the calculation of overall cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model instability was interrogated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsSerplulimab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 1.217 QALYs (2.243 LYs) and 0.885 QALYs (1.661 LYs) with corresponding total costs of $11,202 and $7,194, with an ICER of $12,077 per QALY ($6,883 per LY). This model was most strongly influenced by the utility of progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy had a 91.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $37,653 per QALY (3 × capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). In subgroup analyses, this combination treatment regimen was found to be most cost-effective in patients who were former smokers, had an ECOG performance status of 0, and were diagnosed with brain metastases.ConclusionFrom a payer perspective in China, combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy treatment represents a cost-effective first-line intervention for ES-SCLC patients.
| S-EPMC9845593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective.MethodsA Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model.ResultsAdding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest.ConclusionFrom the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC8592441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective.MethodsA synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis.ResultsPembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.ConclusionFrom the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.
| S-EPMC8642846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), serplulimab plus chemotherapy is beneficial as the first-line treatment. It is uncertain whether serplulimab plus chemotherapy will be more cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to assess the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC.Materials and methodsThis study employed a partitioned survival model. Patients in the model were selected from ASTRUM-005 for their clinical characteristics and outcomes. In order to assess the robustness of the model, we conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analyzes as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Subgroup analyzes were also conducted. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were analyzed.ResultsBased on the base-case analysis, serplulimab plus chemotherapy contributed to an increase in 0.826 life-years and 0.436 QALYs; an incremental cost of $52,331, yielded ICER of $120,149/QALY. Based on the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY, the INHB was -0.954 QALYs and - 0.169 QALYs and the INMB was -$35,924 and -$14,626, respectively. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results, serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of serplulimab and body weight had the greatest impact on the model. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $86,569/QALY when the cost of serplulimab was less than $5.24/mg or when the weight of the patient was less than 40.96 kg. Regardless of the WTP threshold at $37,669/QALY or $86,569. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective in all subgroups.ConclusionSerplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective, despite having a prior clinical benefical and a relative safety profile compared with chemotherapy. With the reduction in the price of serplulimab, ES-SCLC patients treated with serplulimab plus chemotherapy may be able to achieve a favorable cost-effectiveness rate.
| S-EPMC10505963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPlatin-based chemotherapy (CT) has long been the first-line standard-of-care for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Adding immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) to CT (ICI+CT) in this setting is an option of interest, although its benefit is apparently modest.MethodsThis meta-analysis was conducted on randomized trials comparing first-line ICI+CT versus CT alone for ES-SCLC. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), response at 12 months and adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analyses were computed according to the immunotherapy used, performance status (PS), age, platinum salt, liver metastases and brain metastases at diagnosis.ResultsThe literature search identified one randomized phase II (ECOG-ACRIN-5161) and four phase III trials (CASPIAN, IMPOWER-133, KEYNOTE-604 and Reck et al. 2016) that included 2775 patients (66% males, 95% smokers, median age: 64 years, PS = 0 or 1). ICI+CT was significantly associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with prolonged OS [0.82 (0.75-0.89); p < 0.00001] and PFS [0.81 (0.75-0.87); p < 0.00001], with OS benefits for anti-PD-L1 [0.73 (0.63-0.85); p < 0.0001] or anti-PD-1 [0.76 (0.63-0.93); p < 0.006] but not for anti-CTLA-4 [0.90 (0.80-1.01), p = 0.07]. ORRs for ICI+CT or CT alone were comparable [odds ratio 1.12 (0.97-1.00); p = 0.12], but responses at 12 months favored ICI+CT [4.16 (2.81-6.17), p < 0.00001]. Serious grade-3/4 AEs were more frequent with ICI+CT [odds ratio 1.18 (1.02-1.37); p = 0.03]. Compared with CT, no ICI+CT benefit was found for ES-SCLC with brain metastases at diagnosis [HR 1.14 (0.87-1.50); p = 0.34].ConclusionsFirst-line ICI+CT appears to be superior to CT alone for ES-SCLC except for patients with brain metastases at diagnosis.
| S-EPMC7731693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIMpower 133 trial first confirmed the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab or placebo to first-line treatment with chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). While, overprice limited its broad use in clinical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in treatment of extensive SCLC as first line in China.MethodsA Markov model was established by extracting data from the IMpower 133 trial with untreated extensive SCLC patients. Utility values were obtained from published studies, and the costs were acquired from real world and literature. Additionally, sensitivity analyses based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold were performed to identify the uncertain parameters of Markov model.ResultsTotal costs of atezolizumab group were $48,129, while cost of chemotherapy alone was just $12,920 in placebo group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in atezolizumab group was just 0.072 higher than that in placebo group (0.858 QALYs vs. 0.786 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness ratio between atezolizumab combination with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone was $489,013/QALY in China. The net benefit of placebo group was significantly higher than atezolizumab group. One-way sensitivity analyses highlighted that utilities of the progression-free survival (PFS) and progression disease state in placebo group were the most influential parameter.ConclusionsAtezolizumab combination therapy was not more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of $25,929/QALY in China.
| S-EPMC6940079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Phase 3 RATIONALE-312 trial (NCT04005716) showed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy led to a noteworthy enhancement resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival among patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to chemotherapy alone. The treatment also had an acceptable level of safety. Nevertheless, the debate over the efficacy of implementing several treatment plans in competition continues due to the significant expenses involved. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the potential efficacy and cost of tislelizumab treatment as a first-line treatment for the ES-SCLC patient population in China. The study assessed primary health outcomes by measuring life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). This was done using a Markov model considering three health states with a 15-year horizon. To assess its model resilience, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses with probability. In addition, subgroup analyses of some pre-specified patients was performed. Compared to chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.34 ($8,028) QALYs, leading to an ICER of $23,553 per QALY for the overall patient population. The ICER was lower than the assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,367 per QALY. Approximately 60% of simulations suggested that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective, while 40% suggested that chemotherapy alone was cost-effective. The subsequent sensitivity analyses revealed that the health utility value associated with the disease progression parameter had the greatest influence on ICER. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was a preferable treatment option for regimens for patients with ES-SCLC in China. This finding is important in guiding the Chinese healthcare system.
| S-EPMC11685972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.MethodsMultiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.ResultsWe identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.ConclusionThe NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.
| S-EPMC10061061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer from the healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: Based on the KEYNOTE-590 trial, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy, respectively. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and subgroup analyses were adapted to test the model robustness. Result: Compared with the placebo group, pembrolizumab group obtained an additional 1.05 QALY, but the cost was also increased by $121,478.76. The ICER was $115,391.84 per QALY gained, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31,304.31. The results of One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and per cycle cost of pembrolizumab. At a WTP threshold of $31,304.31, the probability of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0%. Conclusion: From the perspective of China healthcare system, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with advanced oesophageal cancer compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC9197184 | biostudies-literature