ArticlePloS one2024
Cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Reporting of Validation Efforts for Cancer Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the efficacy of fluorouracil and platinum based chemotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma to bridge the treatment gap in resource limited settings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of anlotinib plus penpulimab vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials have proven the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab (A+B) in treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of A+B compared to best supportive care (BSC) among uHCC patients in Thailand.
methodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. We used a three-state Markov model to estimate relevant costs and health outcomes over the lifetime horizon. Local cost and utility data from Thai patients were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2023 values using the consumer price index. We reported results as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in United States dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We discounted future costs and outcomes at 3% per annum. We then performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess parameter uncertainty. The budget impact was conducted to estimate the financial burden from the governmental perspective over a five-year period.
resultsCompared to BSC, A+B provided a better health benefit with 0.8309 QALY gained at an incremental lifetime cost of $45,357. The ICER was $54,589 per QALY gained. The result was sensitive to the hazard ratios for the overall survival and progression-free survival of A+B. At the current Thai willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,678 per QALY gained, the ICER of A+B remained above the threshold. The projected budgetary requirements for implementing A+B in the respective first and fifth years would range from 8.2 to 27.9 million USD.
conclusionAlthough A+B yielded the highest clinical benefit compared with BSC for the treatment of uHCC patients, A+B is not cost-effective in Thailand at the current price and poses budgetary challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.