ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Economic evaluation of anlotinib plus penpulimab vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
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
Introduction: While the APOLLO trial confirmed the clinical efficacy of first-line anlotinib plus penpulimab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its economic impact on China's healthcare system remains underexplored. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this novel combination vs. sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states was developed to simulate economic outcomes for patients with advanced HCC. Survival data were derived from the APOLLO trial using parametric fitting. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from local public databases and the published literature. The primary outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) evaluated against the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $40334.05/QALY. Model robustness was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The base-case analysis revealed that anlotinib plus penpulimab incurred a total cost of $25681.69 and yielded 1.42 QALYs, compared with sorafenib's total cost of $18082.48 and 1.19 QALYs. This resulted in an incremental cost of $7599.21 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.22 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $34050.28/QALY, which is below the predefined WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses identified anlotinib treatment duration (cycles) and progression-free survival (PFS) utility values as key drivers of model variability. The PSA indicated an 85.9% probability of cost-effectiveness at the WTP threshold. Conclusion: Anlotinib plus penpulimab represents a potentially cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced HCC from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. These findings support incorporating this regimen into guidelines for selecting cost-effective immunotherapeutic strategies and provide evidence to inform decision-making about resource allocation for advanced HCC management.
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.