ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Cost Effectiveness of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic value of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on five-year overall survival data from the HIMALAYA trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of anlotinib plus penpulimab vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib for US and Chinese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA.
methodsA partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively.
conclusionsThe STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39546248What 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.