Zaiba Shafik Dawood , Zachary J. Brown , Yutaka Endo , Erryk S. Katayama , Muhammad Musaab Munir , Laura Alaimo , Samantha M. Ruff , Henrique A. Lima , Selamawit Woldesenbet , Timothy M. Pawlik
{"title":"免疫检查点抑制剂治疗肝细胞癌的成本效益:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Zaiba Shafik Dawood , Zachary J. Brown , Yutaka Endo , Erryk S. Katayama , Muhammad Musaab Munir , Laura Alaimo , Samantha M. Ruff , Henrique A. Lima , Selamawit Woldesenbet , Timothy M. Pawlik","doi":"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.102013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Immune checkpoint inhibitors<span> (ICIs) have recently been introduced into the treatment<span> algorithm of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with pre-existing therapies for HCC has not been assessed. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the incremental cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with </span></span></span>sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (2000–2022). The incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICI compared with sorafenib and willingness to pay (WTP) were extracted from each study. The variables were used to derive the incremental net benefit (INB). Random-effect meta-analysis was then conducted to derive the pooled INB of ICI compared with sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Five studies (3265 patients, 82.1 % male) met inclusion criteria. All studies assessed the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib. Studies used Quality adjusted life years to assess incremental effectiveness and reported ICER values ranging from $21,000 to $221,000 for ICIs and sorafenib. Four out of five studies reported that ICI had a higher ICER compared with sorafenib at WTP $150,000. The overall pooled INB was US$-42,000 (95 % CI</span><img>US$-96,000, US$11,528) suggesting that ICI was not cost effective compared with sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>When compared with sorafenib, ICIs were not a cost-effective option for systemic therapy for patients with HCC. More work focusing on cost effective options for patients with HCC is warranted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51185,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Zaiba Shafik Dawood , Zachary J. Brown , Yutaka Endo , Erryk S. Katayama , Muhammad Musaab Munir , Laura Alaimo , Samantha M. Ruff , Henrique A. Lima , Selamawit Woldesenbet , Timothy M. Pawlik\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.suronc.2023.102013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Immune checkpoint inhibitors<span> (ICIs) have recently been introduced into the treatment<span> algorithm of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with pre-existing therapies for HCC has not been assessed. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the incremental cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with </span></span></span>sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (2000–2022). The incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICI compared with sorafenib and willingness to pay (WTP) were extracted from each study. The variables were used to derive the incremental net benefit (INB). Random-effect meta-analysis was then conducted to derive the pooled INB of ICI compared with sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Five studies (3265 patients, 82.1 % male) met inclusion criteria. All studies assessed the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib. Studies used Quality adjusted life years to assess incremental effectiveness and reported ICER values ranging from $21,000 to $221,000 for ICIs and sorafenib. Four out of five studies reported that ICI had a higher ICER compared with sorafenib at WTP $150,000. The overall pooled INB was US$-42,000 (95 % CI</span><img>US$-96,000, US$11,528) suggesting that ICI was not cost effective compared with sorafenib.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>When compared with sorafenib, ICIs were not a cost-effective option for systemic therapy for patients with HCC. More work focusing on cost effective options for patients with HCC is warranted.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Oncology-Oxford\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423001135\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740423001135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and Meta-analysis
Background
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been introduced into the treatment algorithm of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with pre-existing therapies for HCC has not been assessed. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the incremental cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (2000–2022). The incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICI compared with sorafenib and willingness to pay (WTP) were extracted from each study. The variables were used to derive the incremental net benefit (INB). Random-effect meta-analysis was then conducted to derive the pooled INB of ICI compared with sorafenib.
Results
Five studies (3265 patients, 82.1 % male) met inclusion criteria. All studies assessed the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib. Studies used Quality adjusted life years to assess incremental effectiveness and reported ICER values ranging from $21,000 to $221,000 for ICIs and sorafenib. Four out of five studies reported that ICI had a higher ICER compared with sorafenib at WTP $150,000. The overall pooled INB was US$-42,000 (95 % CIUS$-96,000, US$11,528) suggesting that ICI was not cost effective compared with sorafenib.
Conclusion
When compared with sorafenib, ICIs were not a cost-effective option for systemic therapy for patients with HCC. More work focusing on cost effective options for patients with HCC is warranted.
期刊介绍:
Surgical Oncology is a peer reviewed journal publishing review articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in surgical oncology and related fields of interest. Articles represent a spectrum of current technology in oncology research as well as those concerning clinical trials, surgical technique, methods of investigation and patient evaluation. Surgical Oncology publishes comprehensive Reviews that examine individual topics in considerable detail, in addition to editorials and commentaries which focus on selected papers. The journal also publishes special issues which explore topics of interest to surgical oncologists in great detail - outlining recent advancements and providing readers with the most up to date information.