Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493395›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Systemic Treatments for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

Mingye Zhao, Xingming Pan, Yue Yin, Hongfei Hu, Jifu Wei, Zhaoshi Bai, Wenxi Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Assessment of NSCLC disease burden: A survival model-based meta-analysis study.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumabClinical and experimental hepatology · 2023
    Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mingye ZhaoDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Xingming PanDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Yue YinDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Hongfei HuDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Jifu WeiJiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zhaoshi BaiJiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Wenxi TangDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
China Pharmaceutical University · CNJiangsu Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is the main histological subtype of liver cancer and causes a great disease burden in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line systemic treatments newly approved in the Chinese market for the treatment of uHCC, namely, sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab (D + A), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (T + A) from the perspective of China's healthcare system, to provide a basis for decision-making. Methods: We constructed a network meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials and used fractional polynomial models to indirectly compare the effectiveness of treatments. The partitioned survival model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,521 (3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China) per QALY. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness. To test the effect of active treatment duration on the conclusions, we performed a scenario analysis. Results: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, D + A, and T + A regimens, it yielded an increase of 0.25, 0.30, 0.95, and 1.46 life-years, respectively. Correspondingly, these four therapies yielded an additional 0.16, 0.19, 0.51, and 0.86 QALYs and all four ICERs, $40,667.92/QALY gained, $27,630.63/QALY gained, $51,877.36/QALY gained, and $130,508.44/QALY gained, were higher than $33,521 except for donafenib. T + A was the most effective treatment and donafenib was the most economical option. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results showed that the base-case analysis was highly reliable. Conclusion: Although combination therapy could greatly improve patients with uHCC survival benefits, under the current WTP, donafenib is still the most economical option.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsBevacizumabCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSorafenibBevacizumabSorafenibcost-effectiveness analysisfractional polynomialnetwork meta-analysispartitioned survivalunresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35493395
PMCPMC9051228
OpenAlexW4223910502

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.