According to the authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China, sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar could improve quality of life for patients, but at a higher cost than lenvatinib.
According to the authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China, sintilimab combined with a bevacizumab biosimilar could improve quality of life for patients, but at a higher cost than lenvatinib.
Liver cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. The authors noted the incidence of liver cancer in China, where the study was conducted, is much higher than the worldwide average. HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, makes up 85% to 90% of liver cancer cases. Programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors, including sintilimab, work by stimulating a tumor immune response and have “significantly prolonged the overall survival time of patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.” However, the authors said, the cost effectiveness of sintilimab therapy for HCC is “unclear.”
Sintilimab plus bevacizumab combination therapy was approved for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC by China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in 2021. Earlier, in 2018, the NMPA approved the oral multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor lenvatinib for treating advanced HCC. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar to lenvatinib for unresectable or metastatic HCC from a Chinese health care system perspective.
In the model, health outcomes were estimated based on clinical efficacy data from 2 recent clinical trials (ORIENT-32 and REFLECT) and indicated by quality adjusted life-years (QALYs).One important limitation of the study, according to the authors, was the indirect comparison of efficacy due to the lack of a head-to-head clinical trial comparing the 2 treatments. Treatment costs and health outcomes were combined to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was adjusted to 2021 US dollars.
The authors found sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar produced an additional 0.493 QALYs at an additional cost of $12,065 compared to lenvatinib in their base case scenario. The ICER was $24,462 for each additional QALY gained. The authors explained that longer survival time in their model led to both more QALYs and higher costs for sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar. Since sintilimab therapy was associated with longer overall survival compared to lenvatinib in the referenced trials, there was a longer duration of therapy in the model and therefore higher costs.
Since the cost of the bevacizumab biosimilar accounted for large proportion (about 50%) of the cost of sintilimab combination therapy in the model, the authors analyzed reducing the dose of the bevacizumab biosimilar from 15 to 7.5 mg/kg, which they said is typical in real-world clinical practice. In this scenario, assuming the same efficacy of a lower dose of the biosimilar, the same QALYs were gained but at an additional cost of $3,715 compared to lenvatinib, less than that in the base case. In this scenario, the ICER was $7,533 per QALY. Although the cost-effectiveness was “significantly improved” compared to the base case, the authors said, the same efficacy assumption “might overestimate the results.”
In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was mainly sensitive to overall survival associated with sintilimab treatment, the cost of the bevacizumab biosimilar, and the cost of subsequent treatment in the sintilimab combination therapy group. Based on variations in these parameters, the ICER varied from $14,304 to $34,113 per QALY.
The authors based willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds on the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of China in 2021 ($12,516). Their results suggested the probabilities of sintilimab therapy being cost-effective were 12.6%, 56%, and 89% at WTP thresholds of 1, 2, and 3 times the GDP per capita of China. When WTP was more than $23,650, sintilimab plus bevacizumab had a higher probability of being cost-effective than lenvatinib.
Reference
Zhou T, Wang X, Cao Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1367. doi: 0.1186/s12913-022-08661-4
The Next Frontier: Oncology Biosimilars in 2025 and Beyond
January 13th 2025The US oncology biosimilar market has rapidly evolved since its launch in 2017, driven by steep price discounts, payer adoption, and provider confidence, with an upcoming wave of biosimilars targeting blockbuster biologics promising further market growth, cost savings, and broader patient access.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
How Vertical Integration Drives Innovation and Access in Biosimilars
December 27th 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, highlights how vertical integration in the biosimilar industry streamlines costs, improves supply reliability, accelerates market adoption, and enhances patient access, while emphasizing the value of collaboration, quality control, and value-based contracts for sustainable health care delivery.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Empowering Vulnerable Populations: The Path to Equitable Biologic Therapy Access
December 22nd 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, senior vice president and system chief pharmacy officer at Providence, discusses strategies to improve equitable access to biologic therapies, including tiered formularies, income-based cost sharing, patient assistance programs, and fostering payer partnerships.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.