Cost‐effectiveness analysis of continuing bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone after first progression of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundContinuation of bevacizumab plus second‐line chemotherapy has significantly improved overall and progression‐free survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cost‐effectiveness of such high cost therapy is still uncertain in China; so this analysis was performed to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of these treatment options from the Chinese health care system perspective.MethodsA cost‐effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the ML18147 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00700102) by modeling a partitioned survival model. Main evaluation indicators were quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201 per QALY. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and stability of the model. Subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to make our study more relevant.ResultsBevacizumab plus chemotherapy increased 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost of $22,761.62 compared with chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $188,904.09 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the utility of progression‐free survival and the cost of bevacizumab. Compared with chemotherapy, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy had a 0% cost‐effectiveness probability, and no cost‐effectiveness in subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The scenario analysis found that bevacizumab biosimilar gained an ICER of $126,397.38 per QALY when assuming the cost of drugs was calculated at the most affordable price.ConclusionsAt the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY, continuation of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely considered cost‐effective for patients after first progression of mCRC.