ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Cost-effectiveness of cadonilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer: evidence to inform drug pricing in the U.S. and China.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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.
- Camrelizumab plus CAPOX versus CAPOX for HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cadonilimab, a bispecific antibody targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), was the first agent of its class to demonstrate promising therapeutic efficacy in combination with chemotherapy for patients diagnosed with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC). This economic evaluation aimed to determine whether cadonilimab plus chemotherapy offers cost-effective benefits compared to chemotherapy alone from both the U.S. and Chinese healthcare payer perspectives. In addition, we estimated the pricing thresholds at which cadonilimab would be considered economically viable as a first-line treatment. Methods: We constructed a Markov model comprising three health states, progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, spanning a 10-year time horizon. The clinical efficacy data were sourced from the randomized phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial. The cost and utility parameters were derived from existing literature. The model calculates total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup, scenario, and sensitivity analyses were performed, and price simulations explored cost-effective thresholds at defined willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels. Results: In the base-case analysis, the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.33 QALYs at an additional cost of $16,797.61, resulting in an ICER of $50,582.10 per QALY, above the WTP threshold of China of $40,354.27 per QALY. In the U.S. setting, although the combination therapy achieved a slightly higher incremental QALY gain of 0.35 QALYs, the substantial additional cost of $101,275.06 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $290,498.45 per QALY, exceeding the U.S. WTP threshold of $150,000.00. Among Chinese patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥5, the ICER was lower at $37,499.27/QALY, rendering the therapy cost-effective. Simulations identified cadonilimab pricing below $209.54/125 mg (China) and $826.46/125 mg (the U.S.) as necessary for cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: Cadonilimab combined with chemotherapy may be cost-effective in Chinese patients with elevated PD-L1 expression. However, its broader use in other patient subgroups or countries requires significant price reductions. These findings provide important guidance for future reimbursements and pricing decisions.
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.