Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37640556›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2023

A cost-effectiveness analysis of avelumab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Taiwan.

Po-Jung Su, Ying Xiao, Amy Y Lin, Connie Goh, Ethan Wu, Kevin Liu, Patrick Chou, Kaitlin Kuo, Roberto Palencia, Jane Chang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Po-Jung SuDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ying XiaoEvidera, London, UK.
Amy Y LinMerck Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4917-0222
Connie GohMerck Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Ethan WuPfizer Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7951-6485
Kevin LiuPfizer Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan.
Patrick ChouIQVIA Solutions Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan.
Kaitlin KuoIQVIA Solutions Taiwan Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan.
Roberto PalenciaThe Healthcare Business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Jane ChangPfizer, New York, New York, USA.
Mairead KearneyThe Healthcare Business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Venediktos KapetanakisEvidera, London, UK.
Agnes BenedictEvidera, Budapest, Hungary.
Merck (Germany) · DEAcer (Taiwan) · TWEVRAZ (United Kingdom) · GBIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GBChang Gung University · TWPfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed that avelumab as first-line maintenance plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival versus best supportive care alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy.

aimsWe assessed whether avelumab plus best supportive care is a cost-effective treatment option versus best supportive care alone in this patient group in Taiwan. METHODS AND

resultsA partitioned survival model was used to estimate the costs and effects of avelumab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration. Patient-level data from JAVELIN Bladder 100 on efficacy, safety, utility, and time on treatment were analyzed to provide parameters for the model. Log-normal and Weibull distributions were used for overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. Costs of healthcare resources, drug acquisition, adverse events, and progression were identified through publicly available data sources and clinician interviews. The model estimated total costs, life years, and quality-adjusted life years. In the modeled base case, avelumab plus best supportive care increased survival versus best supportive care alone by 0.79 life years (2.93 vs. 2.14) and 0.61 quality-adjusted life years (2.15 vs. 1.54). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for avelumab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone was NT$1 827 680. Most (78%) of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses fell below three times the gross domestic product per capita. Scenario analysis indicated that life year and quality-adjusted life year gains were most sensitive to alternative survival extrapolations for both avelumab plus best supportive care and best supportive care alone.

conclusionAvelumab first-line maintenance therapy combined with best supportive care was determined as a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients in Taiwan diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansPlatinumTaiwanAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedavelumabPlatinumavelumabeconomic modelhealth technology assessmentJAVELIN Bladder 100 studyTaiwanurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID37640556
PMCPMC10598249
OpenAlexW4386208460

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.