ArticleJournal of food and drug analysis2025
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab-bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Insights from Taiwan.
Article in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2025. 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.
- Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Three High-Income Regions in Asia.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in immunology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the observed significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival in clinical trials, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has been recommended as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite its clinical benefits, the high cost associated with this treatment poses a substantial challenge in routine practice in Taiwan. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in comparison to sorafenib monotherapy. This study utilized partitioned survival analysis and extrapolated survival over a 20-year horizon to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the National Health Insurance Administration. Efficacy and utility data were directly extracted from the IMbrave150 trial, with input parameters adjusted to align with clinical practice in Taiwan. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. Additionally, a scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of bevacizumab use on the outcomes. Compared to sorafenib, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab resulted in an increase of 0.53 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and had an incremental cost of NT$1,867,151. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NT$3,523,768 per QALY, exceeding the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold at NT$2,788,290 (three times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that reducing the cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to 70% would yield an ICER of NT$1,793,703. Scenario analysis demonstrated cost reduction in bevacizumab, either through the adoption of a biosimilar product or lower dosage, would make the combination cost-effective. Under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system and based on the cost-effectiveness analysis in 2021, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab is not cost-effective compared to sorafenib monotherapy for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.