Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30788569›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2019

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) compared with sorafenib in Japan.

Masahiro Kobayashi, Masatoshi Kudo, Namiki Izumi, Shuichi Kaneko, Mie Azuma, Ronda Copher, Genevieve Meier, Janice Pan, Mika Ishii, Shunya Ikeda

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Masahiro KobayashiToranomon Hospital, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Masatoshi KudoKindai University, Osakasayama, Osaka, Japan.
Namiki IzumiMusashino Red Cross Hospital, Musashino, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuichi KanekoKanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Mie AzumaEisai Co., Ltd., Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Ronda CopherEisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Genevieve MeierEisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Janice PanEisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Mika IshiiEisai Co., Ltd., Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shunya IkedaInternational University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Japan. shunya@iuhw.ac.jp.
Eisai (United States) · USEisai (Japan) · JPInternational University of Health and Welfare · JPKanazawa University · JPKindai University · JPMusashino Red Cross Hospital · JPToranomon Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan.

methodsA partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts.

resultsFor lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was - 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer's willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY.

conclusionsLenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, HepatocellularCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansJapanLiver NeoplasmsModels, EconomicPhenylurea CompoundsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuinolinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSorafenibSurvival AnalysisAntineoplastic AgentslenvatinibPhenylurea CompoundsQuinolinesSorafenibCost-effectivenessHepatocellular carcinomaLenvatinibQALYSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID30788569
PMCPMC6536477
OpenAlexW2916468143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.