IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Qiuping Chen
  • Quan Sun
  • Jing Zhang
  • Baixue Li
  • Quansheng Feng
  • Jibin Liu

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to cost-effectively analyze Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature. Costs were obtained from an open-access database (http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies. The model cycle was 21 days, according to the RATIONALE-301 study, and the simulation period was patients’ lifetime. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. one-way sensitivity analysis (OSWA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters and to adjust and verify the stability of the baseline results. Results: The Tislelizumab group generated a cost of $39,746.34 and brought health benefits to 2.146 QALYs, while the cost and utility of the Sorafenib group were $26750.95 and 1.578 QALYs, respectively. The Tislelizumab group increased QALYs by 0.568, the incremental cost was $12995.39, and the ICER was $22869.64/QALY, lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP). OSWA results showed that the utility of progressed disease (PD), cost of Camrelizumab, and cost of Tislelizumab were the main factors affecting the ICER. PSA results showed that, within 1000 times the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost of the Tislelizumab group was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($37653/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) revealed that when WTP was no less than $12251.00, the Tislelizumab group was the dominant scheme, and the economic advantage grew with an increasing WTP. When WTP ≥ $19000.00, the Tislelizumab group became the absolute economic advantage. Conclusion: Under the current economic conditions in China, the Tislelizumab therapeutic scheme is more cost-effective than the Sorafenib therapeutic scheme for treating patients with unresectable HCC.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiuping Chen & Quan Sun & Jing Zhang & Baixue Li & Quansheng Feng & Jibin Liu, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295090
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295090
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295090&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295090?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.