ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-effectiveness of lurbinectedin with atezolizumab for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in the United States: impact of drug wastage reduction on economic outcomes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe IMforte trial had supported lurbinectedin as a recommended first-line maintenance therapy for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), while its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain for patients and clinical decision-makers. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding lurbinectedin to atezolizumab as maintenance therapy for ES-SCLC and to assess the impact of drug wastage and mitigation strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system.
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab versus atezolizumab alone. Key outcomes included total costs, effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Drug wastage was incorporated in the base-case analysis, and scenario analyses evaluated mitigation strategies through vial sharing and dose rounding. Model uncertainty was assessed using one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
resultsOver a 10-year time horizon, the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group accrued 0.3 more QALYs than the atezolizumab group. Under conditions of drug wastage, the addition of lurbinectedin resulted in an incremental cost of $230,000. When drug wastage was either excluded or mitigated through strategies such as vial sharing and dose rounding, the incremental cost was reduced to $180,000. The corresponding ICERs were $770,000 and $610,000/QALY, respectively. To achieve a greater than 50% probability of cost-effectiveness, an 85% price reduction in both high-cost drugs would be required. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to variations in model parameters.
conclusionsAt current price, lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab is not cost-effective as ES-SCLC maintenance therapy. Mitigating drug wastage and implementing substantial price reductions are essential to improve its economic value.
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.