ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis of a new and more effective treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma-from a Chinese perspective.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnlotinib plus penpulimab has been proven to have good efficacy and safety in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib plus penpulimab compared with sorafenib in the treatment of uHCC from the perspective of the Chinese health system.
methodsBased on the APOLLO clinical trial, a Markov model was constructed, with a simulation time range of 10 years and a cycle of 3 weeks. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as model output indicators. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated through cost-effectiveness analysis, and a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,944.50 was set, which is three times the per capita GDP of China in 2023, to determine the economic feasibility of anlotinib plus penpulimab compared with sorafenib. Sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were utilized to test the robustness of the model.
resultsThe basic analysis results indicated that the anlotinib plus penpulimab group spent $11,191 more than the sorafenib group but gained 0.56 QALYs. The ICER was $19,983.93/QALY, which was lower than three times the per capita GDP of China. The scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model. In 99.9% of the simulations, the incremental cost of each QALY gained by the anlotinib plus penpulimab group was less than $37,944.50.
conclusionUnder the threshold of three times China's per capita GDP, anlotinib plus penpulimab is more cost-effective compared with sorafenib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.