Search

Background: Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has shown significant clinical benefits in improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Method: We conducted an economic evaluation using a Markov state-transition model, reflecting the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Baseline patient characteristics and essential clinical data were obtained from the RATIONALE-312 trial. The costs and utilities were derived from open-access databases and published literature. The primary outcomes measured included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Uncertainties in the model were addressed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA)., Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.16 QALYs at an additional cost of $7430.73, resulting in an ICER of $46,132.33 per QALY. Although above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China of $38,042.49 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness was marginal, with an INHB of - 0.03 QALYs and an INMB of $- 1303.06. In the US, despite a slightly higher effectiveness gain of 0.28 QALYs, the increased cost of $45,157.35 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $163,885.06 per QALY, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00. PSA showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy at 17.18% in China and 40.41% in the US., Conclusion: Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option for ES-SCLC in China or the US; however, the margin of cost-effectiveness was narrow., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Although nivolumab has shown clinical benefits for relapsed malignant mesothelioma, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to placebo for relapsed malignant mesotheliomas from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system., Method: A three-state Markov model was developed based on data from the phase 3 randomized CONFIRM clinical trial. The drug cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from the relevant literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model., Results: Patients receiving nivolumab gained more health benefits (0.65 QALYs vs. 0.43 QALYs). The cost was higher ($25,806.08 vs. $9,310.74) than for patients in the placebo group, resulting in an ICER of $75,805.11/QALY, which was above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times per capita GDP ($35,864.61) in China. The result of OWSA indicated that the cost of nivolumab, the utility of the disease progression, and the discount rate were the most significant factors. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probability that nivolumab was not cost-effective as was 100.00% above the specified WTP threshold., Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, nivolumab was not as cost-effective as placebo for relapsed malignant mesothelioma., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)