Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562848241233134
Shixian Liu, Lei Dou, Shunping Li
{"title":"Immune checkpoint inhibitors <i>versus</i> chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.","authors":"Shixian Liu, Lei Dou, Shunping Li","doi":"10.1177/17562848241233134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined <i>via</i> one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241233134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design: A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods: A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion: Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration: This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

免疫检查点抑制剂与化疗作为晚期食管鳞状细胞癌的二线疗法:系统综述与经济评估。
背景:最近,几种新型程序性细胞死亡蛋白1(PD-1)抑制剂被批准用于二线治疗晚期或转移性食管鳞状细胞癌(OSCC),包括camrelizumab、nivolumab、pembrolizumab、sintilimab和tislelizumab。然而,最佳治疗方案仍不明确:本研究旨在调查现有 PD-1 抑制剂的疗效、安全性和经济性,以便从中国医疗系统的角度确定最佳治疗方案:设计:系统综述和经济评估:利用PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、Embase和Scopus数据库进行了系统综述,以确定2023年8月31日前符合条件的研究。主要结果为无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)和不良事件(AEs)。我们还在五项临床试验的基础上开发了一个以 3 周为间隔的分区生存模型,以预测各种治疗方案的长期成本、质量调整生命年 (QALY) 和增量成本效益比。直接医疗成本和效用值来自公共药品招标数据库、临床试验或发表的文献。通过单向和概率敏感性分析确定了模型中参数的不确定性:分析包括五项随机对照试验,涉及 2837 名患者。与其他治疗方法相比,康瑞珠单抗的PFS疗效最好[危险比(HR):0.69,95%置信区间(CI):0.56-0.86],而pembrolizumab的OS疗效最好(HR:0.55,95%置信区间(CI):0.37-0.82)。与其他免疫疗法相比,Nivolumab引起的治疗相关AE(HR:0.10,95% CI:0.05-0.20)和3-5级AE(HR:0.13,95% CI:0.08-0.21)的发生率相对较低。在经济评估中,10年平均成本从5433.86美元(化疗)到50617.95美元(nivolumab)不等,平均QALY从0.55(化疗)到0.82(camrelizumab)不等。Pembrolizumab 因占优势而被淘汰。在剩余的策略中,当支付意愿阈值为2022年人均国内生产总值的1、2和3倍时,辛替利单抗、替莱珠单抗和坎瑞珠单抗分别是最具成本效益的治疗方案:辛替利单抗可能是中国晚期OSCC二线治疗的最佳选择,其次是替斯利珠单抗和坎瑞珠单抗:本研究已在PROSPERO数据库注册,注册号为CRD42023495204。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信