Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
Bayesian Indirect Comparison and Cost-Effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Sacituzumab Tirumotecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shu Yamin, Tang Ying, Ding Yiling, Zhang Wenting, Zhang Qilin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT) are 2 approved antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer but lack direct comparison. Given their similar indications and high costs, an indirect cost-effectiveness analysis is essential to inform pricing and reimbursement decisions from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model using Bayesian network meta-analysis and flexible parametric modeling estimated long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Participants were derived from the ASCENT and OptiTROP-Breast01 randomized controlled trials. Key outcomes included time-varying hazard ratio, life-years, costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses tested model robustness.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, SG yielded 0.095 additional QALYs compared with sac-TMT at an incremental cost of $68 266, resulting in an ICER of $719 726 per QALY and an incremental net monetary benefit of -$64 400. Sensitivity analyses identified SG price and model time horizon as key drivers of ICER. In all plausible scenarios, SG remained not cost-effective versus sac-TMT. Probabilistic results showed a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $40 763 per QALY. Scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of findings across assumptions on time horizon, utility, wastage, and discounting.
CONCLUSIONS: SG showed slightly greater health gains but much higher costs than sac-TMT, leading to poor cost-effectiveness at current prices. Given the high substitutability between antibody-drug conjugates in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, indirect comparisons with economic modeling can help guide payer decisions and pricing negotiations when head-to-head data are lacking.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model using Bayesian network meta-analysis and flexible parametric modeling estimated long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Participants were derived from the ASCENT and OptiTROP-Breast01 randomized controlled trials. Key outcomes included time-varying hazard ratio, life-years, costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses tested model robustness.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, SG yielded 0.095 additional QALYs compared with sac-TMT at an incremental cost of $68 266, resulting in an ICER of $719 726 per QALY and an incremental net monetary benefit of -$64 400. Sensitivity analyses identified SG price and model time horizon as key drivers of ICER. In all plausible scenarios, SG remained not cost-effective versus sac-TMT. Probabilistic results showed a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $40 763 per QALY. Scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of findings across assumptions on time horizon, utility, wastage, and discounting.
CONCLUSIONS: SG showed slightly greater health gains but much higher costs than sac-TMT, leading to poor cost-effectiveness at current prices. Given the high substitutability between antibody-drug conjugates in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, indirect comparisons with economic modeling can help guide payer decisions and pricing negotiations when head-to-head data are lacking.