IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0349044.html

Economic evaluation of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • XueYin Xu
  • Lian Tang
  • XiangHua Piao
  • ShaoQing Zhan
  • Yong Chen
  • PanFeng Feng

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dual-agent group (finotonlimab combined with a bevacizumab biosimilar) (SCT510) versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Based on the results of a Phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The primary outcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to evaluate the economic efficiency of the dual-agent group compared to the sorafenib group as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The model cycle length was set at 3 weeks, with a time horizon of 10 years and a discount rate of 4.5%. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times China’s 2025 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (299,400 CNY). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The ICER for the dual-agent group compared to the sorafenib group, calculated based on QALYs, was 859,053.76 CNY/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold (299,400 CNY). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that parameters such as utility value in the PD state, utility value in the PFS state, the cost of finotonlimab and bevacizumab biosimilar had a significant impact on the ICER, while other parameters had minimal influence. The base-case analysis results were robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP threshold of 299,400 CNY, the probability of the dual-agent group being cost-effective was 0%. When the WTP threshold was approximately 842,000 CNY, the two groups had equal probability of being cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base-case analysis. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, finotonlimab combined with a bevacizumab biosimilar is not cost-effective as first-line treatment for advanced HCC.

Suggested Citation

  • XueYin Xu & Lian Tang & XiangHua Piao & ShaoQing Zhan & Yong Chen & PanFeng Feng, 2026. "Economic evaluation of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0349044
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349044
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349044&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0349044?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:pone00:0349044. 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.