ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Optimizing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy for driver mutation-negative non-squamous NSCLC in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy have improved survival outcomes in patients with driver mutation-negative non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sqNSCLC). However, the comparative efficacy, safety, and economic value of available PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based regimens remain uncertain in China. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of 14 first-line treatment regimens, including 13 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, in patients with driver mutation-negative non-sqNSCLC. Clinical evidence was subsequently integrated into a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon and 3-week cycles to evaluate cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were derived from reconstructed survival curves using parametric survival models. The primary economic outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Results: The network meta-analysis demonstrated that toripalimab, sintilimab, and pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy provided superior efficacy and favorable safety among 13 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for non-sqNSCLC. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, toripalimab with chemotherapy achieved 2.583 QALYs at a total cost of $39,232.33. And it was cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone, camrelizumab-, tislelizumab-, and sintilimab-based chemotherapy regimens, with ICERs ranging from $10,624.47 to $16,120.12 per QALY, all below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $41,859/QALY. Compared with chemotherapy alone, camrelizumab, tislelizumab, sintilimab with chemotherapy were cost-effective, with ICERs of $28,813.78/QALY, $19,278.47/QALY, and $20,315.01/QALY, respectively. PFS and PD utilities were key drivers of cost-effectiveness, while drug costs predominantly influenced regimens with ICERs. Conclusion: Among currently available first-line treatment strategies for driver mutation-negative non-sqNSCLC in China, toripalimab and sintilimab combined with chemotherapy demonstrated favorable clinical and economic profiles. These findings provide evidence to support treatment selection, reimbursement decisions, and healthcare resource allocation in clinical practice.
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.