OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China.

METHOD

A three-state partitioned survival model that adopted a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length was developed. Efficacy data were derived from the NORA study. Cost and utility data were obtained from published studies and online databases. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. In this analysis, the primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2022 ($12,741 to $38,233/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, niraparib was not found to be cost-effective, with an ICER of $42,888/QALY compared with routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER value was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in placebo group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the WTP thresholds, the probability of niraparib being cost-effective was 2.9% to 50.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Niraparib improves the survival benefit of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. However, it seems to be less cost-effective, as it has higher costs than routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. Reasonable dose reduction according to the patient's actual situation or lowering the price of niraparib can improve its cost-effectiveness.