Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Value Health. 2024 Nov;27(11):1528-1534. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.013. Epub 2024 Aug 2.
The BETAcc clinical trial demonstrated that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (CBA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, the economic value of using this new therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBA for the first-line treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer from the United States healthcare payers perspective.
A state-transition Markov model over a 10-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of CBA with that of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB). The primary outcomes of our study included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
CBA was associated with an additional 0.58 QALY at an extra cost of $172 495.90 compared with CB. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $295 972.43/QALY, significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold value of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that results were most sensitive to the progression-free disease utility, the unit cost of atezolizumab, and progressed disease utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that CBA achieved a 4.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $150 000/QALY threshold. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the unit price of atezolizumab must be reduced by approximately 56.6%.
CBA treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with CB for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in the United States.
BETAcc 临床试验表明,化疗联合贝伐珠单抗加阿替利珠单抗(CBA)可显著延长转移性、持续性或复发性宫颈癌患者的无进展生存期和总生存期。然而,据我们所知,目前尚不清楚该新疗法在该适应证中的经济价值。因此,我们的研究旨在从美国医疗保健支付者的角度评估 CBA 作为转移性、持续性或复发性宫颈癌一线治疗的成本效益。
开发了一个 10 年寿命期的状态转移马尔可夫模型,以比较 CBA 与化疗联合贝伐珠单抗(CB)的成本和效果。我们研究的主要结果包括成本、质量调整生命年(QALYs)和增量成本效益比。进行了单因素敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析,以评估结果的稳健性。
与 CB 相比,CBA 额外增加了 0.58 个 QALY,但成本增加了 172495.90 美元。增量成本效益比为 295972.43 美元/QALY,明显高于 150000 美元/QALY 的意愿支付阈值。单因素敏感性分析显示,结果对无进展疾病效用、阿替利珠单抗的单位成本和进展疾病效用最为敏感。概率敏感性分析表明,CBA 在 150000 美元/QALY 的阈值下达到了 4.3%的成本效益概率。要实现成本效益,阿替利珠单抗的单价必须降低约 56.6%。
与 CB 相比,CBA 治疗转移性、持续性或复发性宫颈癌患者在美国不太可能是一种具有成本效益的选择。