Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36397064›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.

Ting Zhou, Xintian Wang, Yingdan Cao, Lan Yang, Zijing Wang, Aixia Ma, Hongchao Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ting ZhouSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Xintian WangSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Yingdan CaoSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Lan YangSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Zijing WangSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Aixia MaSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. aixiama1961@163.com.
Hongchao LiSchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn.
China Pharmaceutical University · CN

Funding

the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities No.2632022PY03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors, including sintilimab, have significantly prolonged the overall survival time of patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as first-line treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC.

methodsA lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar vs. lenvatinib for advanced HCC from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. The clinical and safety data were derived from two recent randomized clinical trials, the ORIENT-32 and REFLECT studies. Utility data were obtained from previous studies. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the model.

resultsCompared with lenvatinib, combination therapy with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar yielded an additional 0.493 QALYs at a higher cost ($33,102 vs. $21,037) (2021 US dollars). This resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,462 per QALY in the base-case analysis. The ICERs were sensitive to the utility of post-progression and the cost of bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower ICER was estimated when the dose of bevacizumab biosimilar decreased from 15 mg to 7.5 mg per kilogram in the scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of being cost-effective for sintilimab treatment at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of one ($12,516) and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China ($37,547) were 11.6% and 88.6%, respectively.

conclusionSintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic HCC in China when WTP threshold is over $23,650.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsCarcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPhenylurea CompoundsQuinolinesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabBiosimilar PharmaceuticalslenvatinibPhenylurea CompoundsQuinolinessintilimabCost-effectivenessHepatocellular carcinomaLenvatinibPD-1Sintilimab

Identifiers

PMID36397064
PMCPMC9673291
OpenAlexW4309218607

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.