Cost–effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71(3), 209–249 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE et al. Global burden of 5 major types of gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology 159(1), 335–349.e15 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3. Sheikh M, Roshandel G, McCormack V, Malekzadeh R. Current status and future prospects for esophageal cancer. Cancers (Basel) 15(3), 756 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 73(1), 17–48 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Zhou J, Zheng R, Zhang S et al. Gastric and esophageal cancer in China 2000 to 2030: recent trends and short-term predictions of the future burden. Cancer Med. 11(8), 1902–1912 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. An L, Zheng R, Zeng H et al. The survival of esophageal cancer by subtype in China with comparison to the United States. Int. J. Cancer 152(2), 151–161 (2023). • Provides the latest information on regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Bentrem DJ et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 17(7), 855–883 (2019). • Provides the latest information on regimens recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Obermannová R, Alsina M, Cervantes A et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 33(10), 992–1004 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Lu Z, Peng Z, Liu C et al. Current status and future perspective of immunotherapy in gastrointestinal cancers. Innovation (Camb.) 1(2), 100041 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Cheng Y, Han L, Wu L et al. Effect of first-line serplulimab vs placebo added to chemotherapy on survival in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: the ASTRUM-005 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 328(12), 1223–1232 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Lu Z, Wang J, Shu Y et al. Sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ORIENT-15): multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial. BMJ 377, e068714 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Issafras H, Fan S, Tseng CL et al. Structural basis of HLX10 PD-1 receptor recognition, a promising anti-PD-1 antibody clinical candidate for cancer immunotherapy. PLOS ONE 16(12), e0257972 (2021). •• Provides detailed information regarding the efficacy and safety of serplulimab in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Song Y, Zhang B, Xin D et al. First-line serplulimab or placebo plus chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial. Nat. Med. 29(2), 473–482 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Patel AK, Duperreault MF, Pandya CJ et al. Outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor administration in hospitalized patients with solid tumor malignancies. JCO Oncol. Pract. 19(2), e298–e305 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15. Lai S, Xu L, Zhang L et al. Global trends in the health economics field of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: a bibliometric and visualized study. Front. Pharmacol. 14, 1141075 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16. Palmer S, Borget I, Friede T et al. A guide to selecting flexible survival models to inform economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapies. Value Health 26(2), 185–192 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17. Yue X, Li Y, Wu J, Guo JJ. Current development and practice of pharmacoeconomic evaluation guidelines for universal health coverage in China. Value Health Reg. Issues 24, 1–5 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. State Administration of Foreign Exchange. Table of conversion rates of various currencies to USD (2022). www.safe.gov.cn/safe/2023/0228/22399.html
  Google Scholar
• 19. National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistical bulletin of national economic and social development of the People's Republic of China in 2022 (2022). https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01&zb=A0201&sj=2022l (Accessed 2 March 2023). •• Provides methods for reconstructing individual patient data.
  Google Scholar
• 20. Hoyle MW, Henley W. Improved curve fits to summary survival data: application to economic evaluation of health technologies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11, 139 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. Djalalov S, Beca J, Ewara EM, Hoch JS. A comparison of different analysis methods for reconstructed survival data to inform cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 37(12), 1525–1536 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22. Yaozh. BCS database (2022). https://data.yaozh.com/ (Accessed 2 March 2023). •• Provides cost estimates and data.
  Google Scholar
• 23. Li L, Liu X, Huang J, Liu Y, Huang L, Feng Y. Cost–effectiveness of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 13(1), 40–48 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Yang F, Fu Y, Kumar A, Chen M, Si L, Rojanasarot S. Cost–effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab in the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Ann. Transl. Med. 9(15), 1226 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Li S, Peng L, Tan C et al. Cost–effectiveness of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer in China. PLOS ONE 15(5), e0232240 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Zheng Z, Lin J, Zhu H, Cai H. Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more. Front. Public Health 10, 893387 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27. You M, Huang Y, Cai Z et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Front. Oncol. 12, 986762 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28. Zhang Q, Wu P, He X, Ding Y, Shu Y. Cost–effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Front. Oncol. 11, 790373 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Liu S, Dou L, Wang K et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of nivolumab combination therapy in the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. Front. Oncol. 12, 899966 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Zheng Z, Zhu H, Fang L, Cai H. Cost–effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 13, 996914 (2022). •• Discusses a similar cost–effectiveness analysis in China.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Xia C, Dong X, Li H et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 135(5), 584–590 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32. Qiu H, Cao S, Xu R. Cancer incidence, mortality, and burden in China: a time–trend analysis and comparison with the United States and United Kingdom based on the global epidemiological data released in 2020. Cancer Commun. (Lond.) 41(10), 1037–1048 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 33. Li Y, Xu J, Gu Y et al. The disease and economic burdens of esophageal cancer in China from 2013 to 2030: dynamic cohort modeling study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 8(3), e33191 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34. Winn R, Winkfield K, Mitchell E. Addressing disparities in cancer care and incorporating precision medicine for minority populations. J. Natl Med. Assoc. 115(2S), S2–S7 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Zhang H, Fu Y, Chen M, Si L. Socioeconomic inequality in health care use among cancer patients in China: evidence from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. Front. Public Health 10, 942911 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Iliadou V, Athanasakis K. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluations of immuno-oncology drugs: a systematic literature review. Value Health Reg. Issues 37, 23–32 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37. Sun JM, Shen L, Shah MA et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet 398(10302), 759–771 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Ye ZM, Xu Z, Wang HL et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer. Cancer Med. 12(5), 6182–6189 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Doki Y, Ajani JA, Kato K et al. Nivolumab combination therapy in advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 386(5), 449–462 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Cao X, Cai H, Li N et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced esophageal cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 14, 17588359221122733 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 41. Puri P, Cortese D, Baliga S. A time series analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitor use in the United States Medicare population: 2014–2019. J. Dermatolog. Treat. 33(4), 2004–2007 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Lee A. Serplulimab: first approval. Drugs 82(10), 1137–1141 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Zheng Z, Song X, Qiu G et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in China. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 39(3), 1–8 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Meyers DE, Jenei K, Chisamore TM, Gyawali B. Evaluation of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs submitted for reimbursement recommendation decisions in Canada. JAMA Intern. Med. 181(4), 499–508 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 45. Thomson S, Everest L, Witzke N et al. Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement. Cancer Med. 11(2), 380–391 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46. Zhang Y, Wei Y, Li H et al. Prices and clinical benefit of national price-negotiated anticancer medicines in China. Pharmacoeconomics 40(7), 715–724 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 47. Mingge X, Jingyu W, Qi L, Zhe Z, Qing R. Promoting access to innovative anticancer medicines: a review of drug price and national reimbursement negotiation in China. Inquiry 60, 469580231170729 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 48. Cai L, Tao T, Li H, Zhang Z, Zhang L, Li X. Impact of the national drug price negotiation policy on the utilization, cost, and accessibility of anticancer medicines in China: a controlled interrupted time series study. J. Glob. Health 12, 11016 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 49. Liu GG, Wu J, He X, Jiang Y. Policy updates on access to and affordability of innovative medicines in China. Value Health Reg. Issues 30, 59–66 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 50. Zheng Z, Yang L, Xu S et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy for patients with previously treated mismatch repair proficient advanced endometrial cancer in China. Front. Pharmacol. 13, 944931 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar