ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Economic evaluation of three domestic bevacizumab biosimilars and the original bevacizumab for treating nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in china: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ivonescimab Plus Chemotherapy versus Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China Based on the HARMONi-6 Trial.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed the cost-effectiveness of three domestic bevacizumab biosimilars (IBI305, LY01008, and QL1101) and an originator (Avastin) as first-line treatments for nonsquamous NSCLC in China.
methodsA network meta-analysis (NMA) using the fractional polynomial (FP) method was used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) without relying on the proportional hazards (PH) assumption. Adjusted OS and PFS curves were used to compare effects. A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the biosimilars plus chemotherapy versus the originator plus chemotherapy. The model included cost, utility parameters, scale, and shape determined from previous studies. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) were used to assess uncertainty.
resultsIn a baseline study, LY01008 + chemotherapy, QL1101 + chemotherapy, and bevacizumab + chemotherapy were less effective than IBI305 + chemotherapy. Treatment with LY01008 achieved an additional 0.23 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a higher cost of $817, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,552/QALY when compared with that of QL1101. All three biosimilars showed better cost-effectiveness than the originator. The DSA results revealed that the HR-related parameters from the NMA and drug price were the primary sources of uncertainty surrounding incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). PSA showed that the IBI305 was most likely to be cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed the reliability of the fundamental analysis results.
conclusionsDomestic bevacizumab biosimilars are cost-effective alternatives to first-line treatment for nonsquamous NSCLC in China. IBI305 exhibited the most significant cost-effective advantage among the domestic biosimilars.
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.