Cost‐effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus IBI305 versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND: Sintilimab combined with IBI305 treatment regimen had potential clinical benefits than sorafenib in the first‐line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma (HCC). However, whether sintilimab plus IBI305 has economic benefits in China remains unclear. METHODS: From the perspective of Chinese payers, we used the Markov model to simulate patients with HCC receiving treatment with sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib. The transition probability between health states was estimated using the parametric survival model, and the cumulative medical costs and utility of the two treatment methods were estimated. Considering the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the evaluation index, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: Compared to sorafenib, sintilimab plus IBI305 generated an additional $17552.17 and 0.33 quality‐adjusted life years, resulting in an ICER of $52817.89. The analysis outcomes were most sensitive to the total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305. With a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $38,334, sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a 1.28% probability of being cost‐effective. The total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305 should be reduced by at least 31.9% to be accepted by Chinese payers. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of whether the price of sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib is covered by Medicare, sintilimab plus IBI305 is unlikely to be cost‐effective for first‐line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.