Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy as first-line therapy for cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the US.

Medication is the predominant therapy for advanced cancers. However, the use of novel anticancer medications is a major contributor to disease-related financial hardships. Recently, numerous countries have mandated the pharmacoeconomic assessments of novel oncological agents to mitigate patient financial risks and optimize resource allocation. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to standard therapy (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab [BC]) for metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer from the perspective of US healthcare payers, with the aim of supporting policymaking and promoting the rational use of healthcare resources. Using clinical efficacy and safety data from the BEATcc clinical trial, in addition to cost and utility values from publicly available databases and published literature, a partitioned survival model over a 20-year lifetime horizon was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy (ABC) versus BC. The primary output of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess its robustness. At both 20 and 4.5 y of time horizon, ABC therapy showed poor cost-effectiveness, with ICER of $193926.48/QALY and $168482.26/QALY, respectively, which were higher than the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab had the most significant impact on the model results. When the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 10%, ABC changed from being not cost-effective to cost-effective (ICER = $121531.24/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 32.6% probability that ABC would be cost-effective, which increased to 58.6% when the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 10%. For patients with metastatic, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer in the US, ABC was not as cost-effective as BC. Appropriate price reduction (10%) is recommended for atezolizumab to improve cost-effectiveness of ABC therapy.

Lin Y ，Li C ，Wang C ，Chen J ，Huang Y ... -  《Frontiers in Immunology》

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with targeted therapy and chemotherapy for HPV/HIV-related cervical cancer.

To systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to the current standard therapy for human papillomavirus (HPV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related cervical cancer. A partitioned survival model spanning a 20-year period was created to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy (ABC), and pembrolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy (PBC) vs bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy (BC), based on clinical data from the BEATcc and KEYNOTE-826 trials. Royston-Parmar models were used for survival estimation. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from existing literature and publicly accessible databases. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. The evaluation was from the US healthcare payer perspective, with the willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000 to $150,000. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and scenario analyses were conducted. The base-case analysis showed QALYs of 2.05 for BC, 3.18 for PBC, and 2.85 for ABC. PBC increased life-years by 1.76 and ABC by 1.18, with PBC showing the highest effectiveness. Total costs were $272,377 for BC, $715,472 for ABC, and $694,239 for PBC; severe adverse event (SAE) costs were $6189 for BC, $7603.31 for ABC, and $13,640 for PBC, indicating BC had the lowest SAE costs. The ICERs compared to BC were $372,151/QALY for PBC and $553,995/QALY for ABC. Given that the willingness-to-pay threshold was $100,000 to $150,000/QALY, both PBC and ABC exceed this threshold and were not considered cost-effective. BC had the lowest QALYs and the lowest costs, making it the least expensive option and the most cost-effective choice. DSA results indicated that drug prices and utility values were the main factors affecting cost-effectiveness. PSA confirmed BC as the most cost-effective option within a willingness-to-pay threshold of $0 to $300,000, primarily because it was the least costly. Immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improve survival benefits for patients. However, their addition is costly and unlikely to be cost-effective for HPV/HIV-related metastatic cervical cancer.

Liang Y ，Ma A 《-》

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

Marson AG ，Burnside G ，Appleton R ，Smith D ，Leach JP ，Sills G ，Tudur-Smith C ，Plumpton CO ，Hughes DA ，Williamson PR ，Baker G ，Balabanova S ，Taylor C ，Brown R ，Hindley D ，Howell S ，Maguire M ，Mohanraj R ，Smith PE ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Collagenase injection versus limited fasciectomy surgery to treat Dupuytren's contracture in adult patients in the UK: DISC, a non-inferiority RCT and economic evaluation.

Dias J ，Tharmanathan P ，Arundel C ，Welch C ，Wu Q ，Leighton P ，Armaou M ，Corbacho B ，Johnson N ，James S ，Cooke J ，Bainbridge C ，Craigen M ，Warwick D ，Brady S ，Flett L ，Jones J ，Knowlson C ，Watson M ，Keding A ，Hewitt C ，Torgerson D ... -  《-》