ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost effectiveness and pricing strategy of first line benmelstobart combination treatment for extensive stage small cell lung cancer in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benmelstobart Plus Anlotinib Is Unlikely to Be Cost-Effective for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Integrated Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
The current analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of benmelstobart plus anlotinib and chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC from the Chinese health-care system perspective. A mathematical decision model that simulated patients' 3-week transition in 20-year time horizon was conducted to evaluate the economic value. Survival and safety data were gathered from ETER701 trial, cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and previously published studies. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results and to support the health-decision making. For intention-to-treat (ITT) patients, benmelstobart plus anlotinib and carboplatin/etoposide could bring additional 0.60 and 0.71 QALYs with marginal cost of $91,424.86 and $98,504.86 compared with anlotinib plus carboplatin/etoposide and carboplatin plus etoposide, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $153,444.29/QALY and $138,272.39/QALY, respectively, which were higher than the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model results when parameters changed. Benmelstobart plus anlotinib and carboplatin/etoposide was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with anlotinib plus carboplatin/etoposide and carboplatin plus etoposide for ES-SCLC patients in China. Reducing the price of benmelstobart could increase its cost-effectiveness.
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.