Cost-utility analysis of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma
- VernacularTitle:维恩妥尤单抗联合帕博利珠单抗一线治疗晚期尿路上皮癌的成本-效用分析
- Author:
Qi LU
1
;
Jinyue HUANG
1
;
Xin LING
1
;
Hongxu ZHANG
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Xuzhou Cancer Hospital，Jiangsu Xuzhou 221005，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
enfortumab vedotin;
pembrolizumab;
advanced
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(20):2548-2554
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-utility of enfortumab vedotin combined with pembrolizumab （PemEV） versus gemcitabine combined with cisplatin or carboplatin （GP） in the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma （aUC）. METHODS From the perspective of China’s health system， a dynamic Markov model was established based on the pan-Asian subgroup data from the EV-302 trial. The study timeframe was set at 20 years， with a cycle length of 21 days and a discount rate of 5%. Using total direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years （QALYs） as outcome measures， the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio （ICER） of the PemEV regimen compared to the GP regimen was calculated. The robustness of the model was validated through sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis， and the price thresholds for enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab were estimated under conditions where the PemEV regimen was more cost-effective compared to the GP regimen. RESULTS Cost- utility analysis indicated that compared to the GP regimen， PemEV regimen could generate an additional 2.602 QALYs in aUC patients， but the treatment cost increased by 3 339 703.56 yuan， with an ICER of 1 283 554.39 yuan/QALY. This figure significantly exceeded the willingness-to-pay （WTP） threshold （3 times China’s gross domestic product per capita in 2024， 287 247 yuan/QALY）. The rate parameter of the exponential distribution fitted to the overall survival curve in the PemEV regimen had the greatest impact on ICER， according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the PemEV regimen had no chance of being more cost-effective than the GP regimen at the current WTP threshold. Scenario analysis revealed that the PemEV regimen consistently lacked cost-utility advantage over the GP regimen， regardless of whether the study model was changed to a partitioned survival model， the study timeframe was set to 5， 10 or 20 years， or the prices of enfortumab vedotin and/or pembrolizumab were reduced by 60%. The prices of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab should be simultaneously reduced by 78.65% （55.71 yuan/mg and 38.26 yuan/mg， respectively） when the PemEV regimen had a cost-utility advantage over the GP regimen. CONCLUSIONS From the perspective of China’s healthcare system， PemEV regimen does not demonstrate a cost-utility advantage over GP regimen in the first-line treatment of aUC.
