Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) imposes a substantial health burden in China. Finotonlimab plus bevacizumab recently prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib, but its economic value remains unknown. Here we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Parametric survival models were fitted to extrapolate PFS and OS. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $27,906 per QALY. Uncertainty was evaluated by one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), subgroup analyses, scenario analyses, and price simulations. In the base-case analysis, sorafenib yielded 1.74 LYs and 1.25 QALYs at a total cost of $10,303.10, whereas finotonlimab plus bevacizumab yielded 3.01 LYs and 2.18 QALYs at a total cost of $58,595.49. Compared with sorafenib, the combination increased costs by $48,292.39 and generated gains of 1.27 LYs and 0.93 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $38,203.46 per LY and $51,899.31 per QALY. INMB (-$22,325.82) and INHB (-0.80 QALYs) were negative. Sensitivity analyses identified PFS utility and bevacizumab cost as key drivers, but all ICERs remained above the WTP threshold. In PSA, the mean ICER was $50561.81 per QALY, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0% at the prespecified threshold. Based on the assumptions and inputs used in the present model, finotonlimab plus bevacizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib at the prespecified WTP in China.