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.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2025.2464781
Yiling Ding, Chunping Wang, Yamin Shu, Jinglin Wang, Qilin Zhang
{"title":"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.","authors":"Yiling Ding, Chunping Wang, Yamin Shu, Jinglin Wang, Qilin Zhang","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2025.2464781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"2464781"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2025.2464781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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