ArticleClinical drug investigation2024
Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Combination Treatment with Chemotherapy for Patients with Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Japan.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Factors Influencing Drug Prices Differently in Official Drug Pricing and Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Mapping the evolution of immune checkpoint inhibitor research in small cell lung cancer: A bibliometric analysis (1997-2025).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Limited-Stage SCLC.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRecent trials have shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), atezolizumab and durvalumab, in combination with chemotherapy, are effective in treating extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). However, owing to the expensiveness of ICIs, monetary issues arise. The cost-effectiveness of ICI combination treatment with carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) as first-line therapy for patients with ED-SCLC was examined to aid public health policy in Japan.
methodsIMpower 133 and CASPIAN data were used to create a partitioned survival model. Medical expenses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were considered. The analysis period, discount rate, and threshold were set at 20 years, 2%, and 15 million Japanese yen (JPY) [114,068 US dollars (USD)] per QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by gathering reasonable parameters from published reports and combining the costs and effects using parametric models. Monte Carlo simulations, scenario analysis, and one-way sensitivity analyses were employed to quantify uncertainty.
resultsAfter comparing atezolizumab plus CE (ACE) and durvalumab plus CE (DCE) with CE, it was found that the ICERs exceeded the threshold at 35,048,299 JPY (266,527 USD) and 36,665,583 JPY (278,826 USD) per QALY, respectively. For one-way sensitivity and scenario assessments, the ICERs exceeded the threshold, even with considerably adjusted parameters. For the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, there was no probability that the ICER of the ICI combination treatment with chemotherapy would fall below the threshold.
conclusionACE and DCE were not cost-effective compared with CE as first-line therapy for ED-SCLC in Japan. Both these therapies exhibited high ICERs.
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.