Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab, nivolumab and docetaxel as second- and third-line for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature. Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of “Universal Medical Insurance System”, the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments.