Mengmeng Liu, Tong Liu
Our results suggested that triplet therapy was not cost-effective compared to doublet therapy and control therapy as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or mCRC patients with BRAF V600 E mutation at a WTP threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in contrast to doublet therapy of encorafenib and cetuximab or a control group of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with BRAF V600 E mutation-positive status in China.
METHODS: An economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy versus doublet therapy, triplet therapy versus the control group, or doublet therapy versus the control group.
RESULTS: The anticipated costs for triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 58,614.81 USD, 46,521.37 USD and 15,710.17 USD, respectively. The estimated utilities of triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 0.84 QALYs, 0.76 QALYs and 0.53 QALYs. The ICER of triplet-therapy vs. doublet-therapy or triplet-therapy vs. control therapy or doublet-therapy vs. control therapy was 154,675.20 USD/QALY, 140,355.45 USD/QALY, or 135,434.11 USD/QALY.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that triplet therapy was not cost-effective compared to doublet therapy and control therapy as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or mCRC patients with BRAF V600 E mutation at a WTP threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY.