Cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 pharmacotherapies for recurrent glioblastoma in the USA and China

Background: Several studies have systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). However, the discernible limitations of efficacy and the elevated costs of interventions instigate an investigation into the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectivenesses of 11 pharmacotherapeutic interventions for recurrent GBM from the perspective of healthcare payers in the United States (US) and China.Design: A model-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation.Methods: A partitioned survival model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 11 distinct drug-based treatments. The clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from a network meta-analysis, while the medical expenditure and health utility were primarily derived from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to scrutinize the impact of potential uncertainties to ensure the robustness of the model. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Results: Among the therapeutic interventions evaluated, lomustine emerged as the cheapest option, with costs amounting to $78,998 in the United States and $30,231 in China, respectively. Regorafenib displayed the highest quality-adjusted life years at 0.475 in the United States and 0.465 in China. The one-way sensitivity analyses underscored that drug price was a key factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Both scenario and PSA consistently demonstrated that, considering the willingness-to-pay thresholds, lomustine was a cost-effective treatment with probability of more than 94%.Conclusion: In comparison to the alternative antitumor agents, lomustine was likely to be a cost-effective option for relapsed GBM patients from the perspective of healthcare payers in both the United States and China.