본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

First-line enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab versus nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.

1/5 보강
Frontiers in public health 2026 Vol.14() p. 1723784
Retraction 확인
출처

Ying H, Fu B

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[INTRODUCTION] Recent phase III programs, EV-302 and CheckMate-901, showed that enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV + P) and nivolumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin (N + GC) deliver superior clinic

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Ying H, Fu B (2026). First-line enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab versus nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.. Frontiers in public health, 14, 1723784. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1723784
MLA Ying H, et al.. "First-line enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab versus nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.." Frontiers in public health, vol. 14, 2026, pp. 1723784.
PMID 41769117

Abstract

[INTRODUCTION] Recent phase III programs, EV-302 and CheckMate-901, showed that enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab (EV + P) and nivolumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin (N + GC) deliver superior clinical outcomes when used as initial therapy for advanced urothelial cancer. What remains uncertain is their relative economic value when assessed under Chinese and US payer conditions. To address this gap, we compared the value for money of EV + P versus N + GC as first-line management for la/mUC from the perspectives of healthcare payers in China and the US.

[METHODS] We performed a model-based economic evaluation using a time-dependent state-transition framework implemented in TreeAge Pro (2022). Health benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from health-state utilities, and comparative value was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) to evaluate the impact of key parameter uncertainties.

[RESULTS] In the US, EV + P cost $1,863,624.32 and provided 3.34 QALYs, while N + GC cost $881,979.07 for 2.36 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $1,001,626.19 per QALY, exceeding the $150,000/QALY threshold. In China, EV + P cost $485,374.69 and provided 2.95 QALYs, compared to $203,811.61 for 2.15 QALYs with N + GC, yielding an ICER of $351,960.68/QALY, above the $40,451.64/QALY threshold. Therefore, N + GC is the more cost-effective first-line strategy in both countries.

[CONCLUSION] Under current pricing and reimbursement assumptions, N + GC is economically preferable to EV + P as a first-line strategy for la/mUC in both the US and China. EV + P may warrant consideration only in tightly selected scenarios or with substantial coordinated price reductions and policy changes. Meanwhile, it should be noted that due to the inherent limitations of the indirect comparison method between drugs, the conclusions of this study should be regarded as exploratory analysis results.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Gemcitabine; Deoxycytidine; Nivolumab; Cisplatin; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; China; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Urologic Neoplasms; United States

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)