Cost-effectiveness analysis of a first-line treatment with cadonilimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in China: COMPASSION-16 trial.

BACKGROUND

The addition of cadonilimab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. However, the economic value of using this novel therapy for this indication is currently unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of cadonilimab to first-line standard chemotherapy for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cadonilimab versus placebo in patients enrolled in the COMPASSION-16 trial. Cost, life-year, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were calculated for 2 treatment strategies. Sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses, and value of information analysis (EVPI) were performed.

RESULTS

Cadonilimab provided an additional 1.18 QALYs and $89,528.64 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $75,944.56/QALY. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,042.49/QALY, INHB was estimated to be -1.17 QALYs, while INMB amounted to -$44,681.55 and EVPI was calculated as $71.40/person. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to hazard ratio (HR) for OS and PFS, and the probability of cadonilimab being cost-effective was 0.70%. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the price of cadonilimab must be reduced by approximately 50%. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups unfavored cadonilimab by varying the HR for OS and PFS. Scenario analyses showed using life-year as effectiveness, altering time horizon and selection of survival analysis did not reverse results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of cadonilimab resulted in clinical benefit, it was not deemed cost-effective as a first-line therapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in China. Lowering the price of cadonilimab may enhance its cost-effectiveness.