期刊
FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1171302
关键词
cost-effectiveness; cemiplimab; chemotherapy; advanced non-small cell lung cancer; first-line treatment
The EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial demonstrated that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (CCT) improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (PCT). However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment in China is uncertain. Therefore, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CCT as the first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
Background: The EMPOWER-LUNG 3 clinical trial has shown that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (CCT) significantly extended overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (PCT). However, the cost-effectiveness of this new treatment option remains unknown. Thus, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CCT versus (vs.) PCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.Methods: We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The transition probabilities were extracted from the survival data of the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial. The drugs' costs were referred from national tender prices, while other model input parameters were derived from the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial and published literature. The outcome parameters mainly included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes.Results: Compared to PCT, in the CCT regimen, an additional $79,667 was spent in terms of the total cost and with an additional 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER value of $253,148/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the hazard ratio (HR) of OS, the cost of cemiplimab (100 mg), and the HR of PFS, all significantly impacted the model's results. The probability of CCT (vs. PCT) being cost-effective was 0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALYs in China. The scenario analysis showed that when the price of cemiplimab was reduced to less than $184.09/100 mg, the CCT regimen could be considered cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC compared to the PCT.Conclusion: In China, the CCT was not cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据