Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first‐line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost‐effectiveness analysis in China and the United states

• Published in: Liver international 2021-05, Vol.41 (5), p.1097-1104
• Main Authors: Wen, Feng, Zheng, Hanrui, Zhang, Pengfei, Liao, Weiting, Zhou, Kexun, Li, Qiu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: atezolizumab and bevacizumab; Bevacizumab; Cost analysis; cost‐effectiveness; first‐line systemic treatment; Health services; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver cancer; Markov chains; Model testing; Patients; Sensitivity analysis; Survival; unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
• ISSN: 1478-3223; 1478-3231
• DOI: 10.1111/liv.14795

Background & Aims In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first‐line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective. Methods A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open‐label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Results The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing‐to‐pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses. Conclusion The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost‐effective strategy for the first‐line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.