Cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 fusions in Taiwan: from the evidence of the phase II trial and the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration

BACKGROUND: In December 2022, the Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) announced the reimbursement of three dosages of pemigatinib 4.5 mg, 9 mg, and 13.5 mg for treating advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions/rearrangements and set the reimbursement price for pemigatinib 4.5 mg at NT$6600. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib 13.5 mg as a second-line treatment compared to mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy for advanced ICC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements from the perspective of Taiwan’s NHIA. METHODS: This study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to analyze the 5 year cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced ICC patients in whom first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed and to compare the results with those for the mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy regimens. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from the FIGHT-202 trial (pemigatinib), ABC-06 trial (mFOLFOX), and NIFTY trial (5-FU). The price of pemigatinib 13.5 mg was set at the potentially highest listing price (NT$17,820). Other parameters of utility, disutility, and costs related to advanced ICC were obtained from the published literature. The willingness-to-pay threshold was three times the forecasted gross domestic product per capita in 2022 (NT$2,928,570). A 3% discount rate was applied to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Several scenario analyses were performed, including a gradual price reduction for pemigatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and value of information were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Pemigatinib was not cost-effective compared to mFOLFOX or 5-FU in the base-case analysis. When the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 50% or more, pemigatinib gained a positive net monetary benefit (mFOLFOX: NT$55,374; 5-FU: NT$92,437) and a 72% (mFOLFOX) and 77.1% (5-FU) probability of being cost-effective. Most of the uncertainty came from the medication cost of pemigatinib, health state utility, and the overall survival associated with pemigatinib. CONCLUSIONS: According to the NCCN guidelines, the daily use of pemigatinib 13.5 mg at the hypothesized NHIA price of NT$17,820/13.5 mg was not cost-effective compared to mFOLFOX or 5-FU. The price reduction scenario suggested a 50% price reduction, NT$8910 per 13.5 mg, for advanced ICC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements.