Search

BackgroundIn the Checkmate9ER trial, first-line treatment with nivolumab combined with cabozantinib (NI + CA) has shown efficacy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the health and economic outcomes of NI + CA in China.MethodsClinical efficacy data were derived from pivotal phase III CheckMate 9ER trial. A three-state partitioned survival model was established based on disease progression. Progression-free survival and overall survival of NI + CA vs. sunitinib were fitted with log-logistic and log-normal distributions, respectively. Mixture cure, non-mixture cure, and Royston/Parmar spline models were used to evaluate model robustness. The results derived the computational cost from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total cost in US dollars, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at the willingness-to-pay threshold in China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also used to assess the robustness of the model.ResultsIn the base-case analysis result, 0.86 additional QALYs could be obtained in the NI+CA (3.84 QALYs) versus the sunitinib strategy (2.97 QALYs). The ICER of NI+CA compared with the sunitinib strategy was US$292,945 per QALY. The ICER value in the NI+CA strategy was higher than the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of US$38,024 per QALY. Although NI+CA can improve long-term patient survival significantly over sunitinib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, it is unlikely to be cost-effective due to high cost. The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that drug cost, health utility value at the stage of disease progression, and subsequent treatment proportion had a greater impact on the stability of ICER values.ConclusionsNivolumab combined with cabozantinib can prolong the life of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and improve their quality of life, but there is a corresponding increase in medical cost. The NI + CA strategy is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in the treatment of advanced RCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Objective: There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS). Materials and Methods: A seven‐state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long‐term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real‐world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results. Results: The base‐case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was −214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost‐effectiveness. The results of both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy. Conclusion: The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost‐effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision‐makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib versus pembrolizumab and nivolumab as the third-line treatment in recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. A Markov model was built to simulate the costs and health outcomes in the 4-year horizon. Efficacy and safety data of anlotinib, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in patients with recurrent SCLC were derived from three studies. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Three scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results. Compared with anlotinib, pembrolizumab and nivolumab were estimated to gain an additional 0.18 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $10,446 and $5,182, resulting in an increment cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $58,221/QALY and $56,733/QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the likelihood of anlotinib being cost-effective was 87.5% to 99.9% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $11,144 to $33,431/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated that the results varied in different scenarios. The findings suggest that anlotinib could be the most cost-effective option versus pembrolizumab and nivolumab in the third-line treatment of recurrent SCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]