ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ivonescimab Plus Chemotherapy versus Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China Based on the HARMONi-6 Trial.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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
Background: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy improved survival compared with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in the HARMONi-6 trial for first-line advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). However, its economic value in China remains unclear. Methods: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, a partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus tislelizumab plus chemotherapy using efficacy and safety data from HARMONi-6. Analyses were conducted in the overall randomly assigned population and programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score (PD-L1 TPS) subgroups. Outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and cost-effectiveness probabilities. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $27,906 per QALY. Sensitivity, scenario, subgroup, and price simulation analyses were performed. Results: In the overall population, ivonescimab plus chemotherapy increased costs compared with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy ($77,730.17 vs $40,088.29) and improved outcomes, with 3.5912 versus 2.3113 LYs and 2.9059 versus 1.8704 QALYs. The incremental cost was $37,641.88, with gains of 1.2799 LYs and 1.0355 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $36,351.02 per QALY. Across PD-L1 TPS subgroups, all ICERs exceeded the WTP threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 9.7% probability of cost-effectiveness at $27,906 per QALY, increasing to 87.5% at $41,859 per QALY. Price simulation indicated that ivonescimab would need to be priced at no more than $69.59 per 100 mg to be cost-effective at $27,906 per QALY. Conclusion: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy provided greater survival benefits than tislelizumab plus chemotherapy but was unlikely to be cost-effective relative to tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in China at the current price.
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.