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

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Surgical Oncology-Oxford Pub Date : 2023-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.suronc.2023.102013
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 ,&nbsp;Zachary J. Brown ,&nbsp;Yutaka Endo ,&nbsp;Erryk S. Katayama ,&nbsp;Muhammad Musaab Munir ,&nbsp;Laura Alaimo ,&nbsp;Samantha M. Ruff ,&nbsp;Henrique A. Lima ,&nbsp;Selamawit Woldesenbet ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Zachary J. Brown ,&nbsp;Yutaka Endo ,&nbsp;Erryk S. Katayama ,&nbsp;Muhammad Musaab Munir ,&nbsp;Laura Alaimo ,&nbsp;Samantha M. Ruff ,&nbsp;Henrique A. Lima ,&nbsp;Selamawit Woldesenbet ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)最近被引入肝细胞癌(HCC)患者的治疗算法中。然而,与已有的HCC治疗方法相比,ICIs的成本效益尚未得到评估。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以了解与索拉非尼相比,ICIs的增量成本效益。方法检索spubmed、Embase、Medline、Scopus和CINAHL数据库(2000-2022年)。从每项研究中提取ICI与索拉非尼相比的增量成本、增量有效性、增量成本有效性比(ICER)和支付意愿(WTP)。这些变量用于推导增量净效益(INB)。然后进行随机效应荟萃分析,得出ICI与索拉非尼的合并INB。结果5项研究(3265例,男性82.1%)符合纳入标准。与索拉非尼相比,所有研究都评估了ICIs的成本效益。研究使用质量调整生命年来评估增量有效性,报告的ICIs和索拉非尼的ICER值从21,000美元到221,000美元不等。五分之四的研究报告说,在WTP为15万美元时,ICI与索拉非尼相比具有更高的ICER。总体合并INB为-42,000美元(95% CIUS为-96,000美元,11528美元),表明与索拉非尼相比,ICI不具有成本效益。结论:与索拉非尼相比,ICIs不是HCC患者全身治疗的成本效益选择。有必要开展更多的工作,重点关注HCC患者的成本效益选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Oncology-Oxford
Surgical Oncology-Oxford 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
169
审稿时长
38 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning in cancer prognostication: Limitations and opportunities. Bilobed lateral artery perforator-based flap for partial breast reconstruction - Technique description and results from a ten-year cohort. Individualizing care for patients with gallbladder cancer Natural history of salivary gland secretory carcinoma: A REFCOR study. Tumor necrosis drives prognosis in osteosarcoma: No difference in chemotherapy response and survival between chondroblastic and osteoblastic osteosarcoma
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1