Search

Objective: The CAMEL clinical trial (412 patients were randomly assigned to either camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 205) or chemotherapy alone (n = 207)) demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) improved the overall survival time (OS) and progression-free survival time (PFS) of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sq NSCLC) without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations (EGFRm and ALKm) vs. chemotherapy (C) alone. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of CC vs. C from a perspective of health - care system in China with a lifetime horizon to identify whether it will be cost-effective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was applied for patients with IIIB–IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm. Transition parameters and proportions of three health states were derived from the CAMEL trial. The model was designed using a lifetime horizon, a 21-day cycle, and a 5% discount rate of costs and outcomes. It was deemed cost-effective in China if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value is less than $32,457 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results. Results: In the base-case analysis, we found that the ICER of CC compared with C is $-7,382.72/QALY which meant that CC had lower costs and better outcomes. The results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the result was robust for the ICERs never transcending the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is an obviously cost-effective therapeutic regime for patients of IIIB–IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm in China at a $32,457 WTP threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Faced with limited and inadequate treatment options for patients with advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC), researchers have turned toward, with the support of promising clinical trials, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibody therapy. But there are also different clinical trial results. To better assess its efficacy and safety, we integrated data from 13 eligible studies for a systematic review and meta-analysis., Aim: To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibody therapy in the treatment of advanced GC/GEJC patients., Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library ,and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible articles with outcomes including objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibody therapy., Results: Our study encompassed a total of 13 trials totaling 1618 patients. The outcomes showed a pooled ORR and DCR of 15% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-18%) and 40% (95%CI: 33%-46%), respectively. The pooled 6-mo OS and PFS were 54% (95%CI: 45%-64%) and 26% (95%CI: 20%-32%), respectively, and the 12-mo OS and PFS were 42% (95%CI: 21%-62%) and 11% (95%CI: 8%-13%), respectively. In addition, the incidence of any-grade AEs and grade ≥ 3 AEs was 64% (95%CI: 54%-73%) and 18% (95%CI: 16%-20%), respectively. Most importantly, PD-L1 positive patients exhibited a higher ORR rate than PD-L1 negative patients (odds ratio = 2.54, 95%CI: 1.56-4.15)., Conclusion: Anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibody therapy has shown promising anti-tumor efficacy with manageable AEs in advanced GC/GEJC patients, with PD-L1 overexpressing patients exhibiting a higher ORR. What is more, the clinical efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with traditional chemotherapy drugs is even better, although the occurrence of AEs still causes considerate concerns., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: No conflict of interest., (©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)