Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39276261›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: perspectives from the United States and China.

Wenwang Lang, Qi Ai, Yulong He, Yufei Pan, Qinling Jiang, Ming Ouyang, Tianshou Sun

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cost-effectiveness of socazolimab plus chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a U.S. and China perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Wenwang LangDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China. 290702062@qq.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3583-9518
Qi AiDepartment of Oncology, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.
Yulong HeDepartment of Oncology, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.
Yufei PanDepartment of Oncology, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.
Qinling JiangDepartment of Oncology, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.
Ming OuyangDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.
Tianshou SunDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin, China.

Funding

Drug clinical comprehensive evaluation project of Health Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region YPPJ014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has shown significant clinical benefits in improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

aimThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

methodWe conducted an economic evaluation using a Markov state-transition model, reflecting the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Baseline patient characteristics and essential clinical data were obtained from the RATIONALE-312 trial. The costs and utilities were derived from open-access databases and published literature. The primary outcomes measured included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Uncertainties in the model were addressed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA).

resultsIn the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.16 QALYs at an additional cost of $7430.73, resulting in an ICER of $46,132.33 per QALY. Although above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China of $38,042.49 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness was marginal, with an INHB of - 0.03 QALYs and an INMB of $- 1303.06. In the US, despite a slightly higher effectiveness gain of 0.28 QALYs, the increased cost of $45,157.35 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $163,885.06 per QALY, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00. PSA showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy at 17.18% in China and 40.41% in the US.

conclusionTislelizumab combined with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option for ES-SCLC in China or the US; however, the margin of cost-effectiveness was narrow.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisLung NeoplasmsMarkov ChainsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSmall Cell Lung CarcinomaChinaCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleUnited StatesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedtislelizumabChemotherapyCost-effectivenessExtensive-stage small-cell lung cancerMarkov modelTislelizumab

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.