ArticleClinical drug investigation2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Anlotinib Plus Penpulimab Versus Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2026. 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.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line penpulimab plus chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGiven the substantial disease burden of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in China and the high costs associated with novel combination therapies, this study aims to evaluate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the cost effectiveness of anlotinib combined with penpulimab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for uHCC.
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed using clinical data from the Phase III APOLLO trial. The model employed a 21-day cycle length and a 10-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib was calculated and compared against a predefined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold-set at three times China's 2024 per capita GDP (40,354.27 US$ per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) -to determine cost effectiveness. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.
resultsCompared with the sorafenib group, the anlotinib plus penpulimab group incurred higher costs (44,068.90 US$ vs 38,142.25 US$) but provided greater survival benefits (1.20 QALYs vs 1.03 QALYs), yielding an ICER of 34,862.65 US$/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility value in the progressive disease state, the price of penpulimab, and utility value in the progression-free survival state had the most significant impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated robust results, with a 60.6% probability of anlotinib plus penpulimab being cost effective.
conclusionOur study suggests that anlotinib combined with penpulimab represents a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients with uHCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. These results provide critical evidence to inform clinical practice and healthcare reimbursement policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41854985What 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.