Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37697368›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023

Cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 fusions in Taiwan: from the evidence of the phase II trial and the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

Zi-Rong Chen, Chen-Han Chueh, Nai-Jung Chiang, Yi-Wen Tsai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zi-Rong Chen *Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4777-6792
Chen-Han Chueh *Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3337-2586
Nai-Jung ChiangDepartment of Oncology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. njchiang@vghtpe.gov.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9292-0055
Yi-Wen TsaiInstitute of Health and Welfare Policy, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan. ywtsai@nycu.edu.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1422-7217
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn December 2022, the Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) announced the reimbursement of three dosages of pemigatinib 4.5 mg, 9 mg, and 13.5 mg for treating advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions/rearrangements and set the reimbursement price for pemigatinib 4.5 mg at NT$6600. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib 13.5 mg as a second-line treatment compared to mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy for advanced ICC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements from the perspective of Taiwan's NHIA.

methodsThis study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to analyze the 5 year cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced ICC patients in whom first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed and to compare the results with those for the mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy regimens. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from the FIGHT-202 trial (pemigatinib), ABC-06 trial (mFOLFOX), and NIFTY trial (5-FU). The price of pemigatinib 13.5 mg was set at the potentially highest listing price (NT$17,820). Other parameters of utility, disutility, and costs related to advanced ICC were obtained from the published literature. The willingness-to-pay threshold was three times the forecasted gross domestic product per capita in 2022 (NT$2,928,570). A 3% discount rate was applied to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Several scenario analyses were performed, including a gradual price reduction for pemigatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and value of information were performed to assess uncertainty.

resultsPemigatinib was not cost-effective compared to mFOLFOX or 5-FU in the base-case analysis. When the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 50% or more, pemigatinib gained a positive net monetary benefit (mFOLFOX: NT$55,374; 5-FU: NT$92,437) and a 72% (mFOLFOX) and 77.1% (5-FU) probability of being cost-effective. Most of the uncertainty came from the medication cost of pemigatinib, health state utility, and the overall survival associated with pemigatinib.

conclusionsAccording to the NCCN guidelines, the daily use of pemigatinib 13.5 mg at the hypothesized NHIA price of NT$17,820/13.5 mg was not cost-effective compared to mFOLFOX or 5-FU. The price reduction scenario suggested a 50% price reduction, NT$8910 per 13.5 mg, for advanced ICC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements.

Indexed as

Cost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationIntrahepataic cholangiocarcinomaPemigatinibPrice listing strategyTargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID37697368
PMCPMC10496386
OpenAlexW4386602548

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.